6 1 Resident perceptions 0 of Oregon Marine Reserves€¦ · 2016 to residences in the most heavily...

Marine Resources ProgramNewport, Oregon

Resident perceptionsof Oregon Marine Reserves20

16

Resident Perceptions of the Oregon Marine Reserve System

Final Report

Mark D. Needham, Ph.D.

Lori A. Cramer, Ph.D.

Jennifer R. Johnston, M.S. Student

Oregon State University

Conducted for and in cooperation with

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

2016


i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Tommy Swearingen and Cristen Don at Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife (ODFW) for their assistance, input, and support during this project. Carlos Alvarado,

Sarah Darst, Ethan Donoghue, Sarah Greenleaf, Joshua Petit, and Jaclyn Rushing are thanked for

assisting with survey administration. Elizabeth Perry is thanked for assistance with the first phase

of this project, which involved surveying coastal residents. Ashley Hyon (Marketing Systems

Group) is thanked for helping to select the sample, and Sandra Arbogast is thanked for creating

maps for this project. A special thank you is extended to all of the residents who took time

completing questionnaires. Funding for this project was provided by the Oregon Department of

Fish and Wildlife. This project was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Oregon

State University and complied with all regulations on research involving human subjects.

Although several people assisted with this project, any errors, omissions, or typographical

inconsistencies in this final report are the sole responsibility of the authors. All content in this

final report was written by the authors and represents views of the authors based on the data and

does not necessarily represent views of the funding agency or others who assisted in this project.

SUGGESTED CITATION

Needham, M. D., Cramer, L. A., & Johnston, J. R. (2016). Resident perceptions of the Oregon marine reserve system. Final project report for Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Department of Forest Ecosystems and Society; and the Natural Resources, Tourism, and Recreation Studies Lab (NATURE).


ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Objectives

In 2012, the State of Oregon designated five marine reserves in its waters (Otter Rock, Redfish Rocks, Cape Falcon, Cape Perpetua, Cascade Head) to advance scientific research, assess impacts of reserve implementation, and conserve habitats and biodiversity. Studies have examined biological issues and impacts associated with these reserves. Evaluations of social and economic impacts, however, mainly involved information from community evaluation teams consisting of small groups of stakeholders (e.g., commercial anglers, conservation groups, watershed councils, scientists). Additional data for evaluating social and economic impacts of these reserves were collected from town hall meetings with select residents, questionnaires given to specific industries or interest groups (e.g., commercial and recreational anglers), and other observational data. Taken together, these efforts involved economic stakeholders and vocal residents thought to be most directly affected by these reserves.

What was lacking, however, was a comprehensive, systematic, and representative assessment of resident perceptions of these marine reserves. Scientifically grounded random and representative samples of residents are required for generalizing information beyond select stakeholders. This project, therefore, addressed this knowledge gap by utilizing representative samples of residents (i.e., the voting public): (a) along the Oregon coast (Phase 1; Needham, Cramer, & Perry, 2013), and (b) in the most heavily populated region of Oregon (Portland to Ashland between the Coast and Cascade Mountain Ranges [I-5 corridor]; Phase 2). The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) is responsible for overseeing management and monitoring of these marine reserves, and pursuant to this mandate, the purpose of this project was to continue socioeconomic monitoring by developing a profile of state resident knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors regarding this reserve system. Project objectives were to understand resident:

Awareness of these marine reserves and sources of information for learning about the areas.

Knowledge of the characteristics, benefits, and constraints of these marine reserves.

Attitudes of support and opposition toward these reserves (i.e., favor, disfavor, like, dislike).

Perceptions about the future effectiveness of these reserves in meeting management goals.

Activities that residents believe should and should not be allowed to occur in these reserves.

Behaviors in response to these reserves and how residents may change their use of these areas in the future (e.g., increase or displace any visitation / recreation use).

Sociodemographic characteristics.

Methods

Data were collected in two phases. Phase 1 involved administering questionnaires by mail in late 2012 and early 2013 to residences along the Oregon coast selected randomly from postal records. A sample of 2,600 addresses was equally divided into two subpopulations: (a) residents near the five marine reserves (i.e., communities of place), and (b) residents along the rest of the coast (i.e., general coastal sample). The 1,300 addresses in the communities of place were distributed equally among five areas corresponding to each marine reserve location (i.e., 260 addresses each). A 10-mile radius was drawn around the land point nearest to the center of each reserve and communities within this radius were included in the communities of place delineation. The other half of the sample addresses (i.e., 1,300) was spread throughout the rest of the coast and included areas seaward of the Coast Range excluding those in the five communities of place. Three separate mailings were implemented (full mailing, postcard reminder, full mailing). In total, 357 questionnaires were undeliverable (e.g., incorrect address, vacant, moved) and n = 595 completed questionnaires were returned, yielding a 27% response rate (595 / 2,600 – 357). The sample size for residents in the communities of place was n = 326 (30% response rate) and the sample for those along the rest of the coast (i.e., general coastal sample) was n = 269 (23% response rate). The combined sample size of n = 595 allows generalizations about the population of Oregon coastal residents at a margin of error of ± 4% at the 95% confidence level, which is better than the conventional standard of ± 5% that is widely accepted and adopted in human dimensions of natural resources research. To check for potential


iii

nonresponse bias, coastal residents who completed a mail questionnaire were compared against those who did not (i.e., nonrespondents). A sample of n = 202 nonrespondents was telephoned and asked 10 questions from the questionnaire. There were no substantive differences in responses between those who responded to the mail survey and those who did not (i.e., completed the telephone nonresponse bias check), so the data did not need to be weighted based on this nonresponse bias check. The data were, however, weighted by population proportions based on the most recent US Census information for number of households in the sampling areas to ensure that the sample and questionnaire responses were statistically representative of the broader target population. Detailed results of Phase 1 were reported in Needham et al. (2013), but some of these results are statistically examined in relation to Phase 2 data in this report here for comparison purposes.

Phase 2 involved administering questionnaires using a mixed-mode (i.e., mail, internet) survey in early 2016 to residences in the most heavily populated region of Oregon (Portland to Ashland between the Coast and Cascade Mountain Ranges [I-5 corridor]). A sample of 2,800 addresses was selected randomly from postal records. Four mailings were implemented (postcard pre-notification with option to complete questionnaire on the internet using individual access codes, full mailing, postcard reminder with option to complete questionnaire on the internet, full mailing). In total, 206 questionnaires were undeliverable (e.g., incorrect address, vacant, moved) and n = 530 completed questionnaires were returned, yielding a 20% response rate (530 / 2,800 – 206). This sample size allows generalizations about the population of residents in this region at a margin of error of ± 4% at the 95% confidence level. To check for potential nonresponse bias, a sample of n = 75 nonrespondents was telephoned and asked 11 questions from the questionnaire. There were no substantive differences between those who responded to the mail survey and those who did not (i.e., completed telephone nonresponse check), so the data were not weighted based on this nonresponse bias check. The data were, however, weighted by demographics (e.g., age; male, female, transgender) based on the most recent US Census for this region to ensure that the sample and questionnaire responses were statistically representative of the target population.

Results

Given that results of Phase 1 (coast) were already reported in Needham et al. (2013), the following results are from Phase 2 (Portland to Ashland between the Coast and Cascade Mountain Ranges [I-5 corridor]). Some of these Phase 2 results are, however, statistically examined in relation to Phase 1 data for comparison purposes.

Oregon Marine Areas in General

Among Phase 2 respondents (I-5 corridor), 88% have visited marine areas in Oregon and only 12% have never visited these areas.

Phase 2 respondents (I-5 corridor) have participated in a range of activities in Oregon’s marine areas, especially sightseeing (89%), viewing marine animals (80%), and exploring tidepools (76%). Phase 1 respondents (coast) were more likely than Phase 2 respondents to view marine animals (86% vs. 80%) and participate in motorized boating (43% vs. 26%), non-motorized boating (28% vs. 21%), non-charter recreational fishing (55% vs. 32%), charter recreational fishing (32% vs. 23%), and commercial fishing (10% vs. 2%).

Sightseeing (45%), exploring tidepools (17%), non-charter recreational fishing (13%), and viewing marine animals (11%) were the most popular main activities among Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents. Compared to Phase 1 (coast) respondents, more Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents considered sightseeing (45% vs. 35%) and exploring tidepools (17% vs. 8%) as their main activities. Conversely, those on the coast (Phase 1) were more likely to specify non-charter recreational fishing (22% vs. 13%) as their main activity.

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents overwhelmingly perceived marine areas and other natural resources in Oregon to be moderately or very healthy. These respondents perceived wildlife to be the most healthy (78%), and bays and estuaries as the least healthy (65%). Approximately three-quarters of these residents perceived Oregon’s forests (74%), marine animals (71%), marine areas (i.e.,


iv

ocean; 71%), rivers and streams (70%), and marine fish (69%) as healthy. There were no differences between respondents on the coast (Phase 1) and those living along the I-5 corridor (Phase 2).

In total, 69% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents agreed that the government should do more to help protect marine areas in Oregon, with these residents indicating significantly stronger agreement than those on the coast (50%, Phase 1).

A minority of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents agreed that people who fish commercially (39%) or recreationally (15%) are harming marine areas in Oregon. There were no differences between respondents on the coast (Phase 1) and along the I-5 corridor (Phase 2).

Less than one-third of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents agreed the condition of marine areas in Oregon has improved in recent years (31%), managers are doing everything they can to protect these areas (21%), and laws protecting these marine areas are too strict (8%). Phase 1 (coast) respondents were more likely than Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents to agree that managers are doing everything they can to protect Oregon’s marine areas (30% vs. 21%) and laws protecting marine areas in the state are too strict (22% vs. 8%).

The majority of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents (64% to 94%) believed that a number of federal, state, and local groups and organizations (e.g., Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, university researchers, people who live along the Oregon coast, local governments, environmental organizations) should have an influence in managing marine areas in Oregon. The only group that less than the majority of respondents (44%) felt should have an influence were people who do not live on the Oregon coast. The organization these residents believed should have the greatest influence was the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (94%). Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were more likely than those on the coast (Phase 1) to think most of these groups and organizations should influence management of marine areas in Oregon.

The majority of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents trust many of these groups and organizations to contribute to management of marine areas in Oregon. Groups most strongly trusted were Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (87%), university researchers (87%), Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (84%), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (83%), and US Fish and Wildlife Service (81%). Groups who were trusted the least included people who do not live on the coast (31%), those who fish commercially (43%), and people who recreate in marine areas (45%). Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents had more trust in university researchers, environmental organizations, people who do not live on the coast, and most federal, state, and local agencies (e.g., Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Fish and Wildlife Service, local governments). Respondents on the coast (Phase 1) had higher trust in people who live along the Oregon coast and people who fish commercially.

Oregon Marine Reserves

In total, 60% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents had visited at least one of the five Oregon marine reserves. By comparison, Phase 1 (coast) respondents were slightly more likely (67%) to have visited. Among Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents who had visited, equal proportions had either visited the site(s) before but not in the past 12 months (25%) or visited just once during this time (25%). The largest percentage of these respondents had visited the site(s) two or three times (33%), and visited Otter Rock (43%) followed by Cascade Head (39%), Cape Perpetua (26%), Cape Falcon (23%), and Redfish Rocks (10%). Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were more likely than those on the coast (Phase 1) to have visited Cascade Head (39% vs. 33%), whereas coastal residents (Phase 1) were more likely to have visited Cape Perpetua (38% vs. 26%) and Redfish Rocks (24% vs. 10%).

Half (50%) of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents felt they understood the purpose of these reserves. However, only 40% understood the role of science in these reserves, 35% were familiar with these reserves, 25% understood the role of public involvement, 23% felt informed about the topic of marine reserves in Oregon, and 21% felt knowledgeable about these reserves. Only 17% understood


v

where the reserves were located and rules / regulations associated with the reserves, and only 15% understood how the reserves would be managed. Across all of these self-assessed knowledge questions, Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents reported lower familiarity, understanding, and knowledge compared to Phase 1 (coast) residents. For example, 71% of Phase 1 (coast) residents versus only 35% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents felt familiar with the reserves, and 44% of Phase 1 (coast) versus 23% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) residents felt informed about these reserves.

Residents answered 11 true / false and multiple choice questions measuring their factual knowledge about Oregon’s marine reserves. This knowledge was low among Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents, with an average score of only 36% of questions answered correctly, which was lower compared to Phase 1 (coast) respondents (47% correct). The only two items answered correctly by the majority of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were that scientists would not be the only people allowed in these reserves (52%) and commercial fishing would not be allowed in all of the reserves (50%). The question answered correctly by the fewest residents was that the government has established five marine reserves (14%). Only 47% of these residents correctly identified ODFW as the agency responsible for these reserves, 44% knew there have been opportunities for public involvement in decisions about these areas, 43% knew keeping fish caught would not be allowed in all marine reserves, and 42% knew the government has been considering marine reserves in Oregon for several years. Less than 30% of these respondents, however, answered the other factual knowledge questions correctly. These Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents correctly answered 10 of these 11 factual knowledge questions less often compared to Phase 1 (coast) respondents. For example, 71% of Phase 1 (coast) residents and only 42% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents knew that the government has been considering marine reserves for the past several years, and 30% of Phase 1 (coast) residents versus only 14% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents knew that the government has established five marine reserves.

Only 17% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents agreed it is easy to access and find information about the marine reserves in Oregon. There were no differences in agreement between Phase 2 (I-5 corridor; 17%) and Phase 1 (coast; 18%) respondents. Only 7% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents agreed that managers have done a good job communicating with the public about these marine reserves, which was slightly lower compared to Phase 1 (coast) respondents (13%).

Respondents have used various sources to obtain information about marine reserves in Oregon, but no one source was used by the majority (over 50%) of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents. Newspapers (49%) and television news / programs (47%) were the most often sources used by these respondents, whereas attending meetings or presentations (11%) and discussing the reserves with government agency employees (12%) were the least cited sources. More than 30% of these residents indicated they had discussed Oregon’s marine reserves with friends or family (44%), listened to radio news or programs about the reserves (40%), and read magazine articles or books about these areas (38%). Compared to Phase 1 (coast) residents, Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were less likely to have used 11 of 13 sources. For example, 80% of Phase 1 (coast) residents compared to only 49% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents read newspaper articles about these reserves. The only sources used by statistically similar proportions of Phase 1 (coast) and Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were reading about the reserves on general websites (30% and 31%, respectively), government agency websites (28% and 23%, respectively), and social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter; 20% and 22%, respectively).

The greatest proportions of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents would prefer to receive information about these reserves from newspaper articles (21%) or television news and related programs (20%). The least preferred sources included friends or family (1%), government agency employees (1%), and work or school (3%). Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were more likely than those on the coast (Phase 1) to prefer radio news and programs (14% vs. 5%) and social media websites (8% vs. 1%). Phase 1 (coast) residents were more likely than Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents to prefer to obtain information from meetings or presentations (12% vs. 4%).


vi

In total, 82% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents believed in protecting Oregon’s marine areas with little or no human utilization, whereas 19% believed in utilizing these areas with little or no protection. Most (70%) of these respondents believed marine areas should mostly be protected with just a little utilization. Coastal residents (Phase 1, 37%) were more likely than Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents (18%) to believe that marine areas should be mostly utilized with just a little protection, whereas Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents (70%) were more likely than coastal residents (Phase 1, 48%) to believe marine areas should mostly be protected with just a little utilization.

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents overwhelmingly agreed (89%) that scientific research should be allowed in these marine reserves. In addition, 52% of these respondents agreed that non-extractive recreation and tourism activities should also be allowed (e.g., surf, swim). Only 27%, however, agreed that recreational fishing should be allowed, and the fewest thought that commercial fishing should be allowed (8%). Compared to these Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents, Phase 1 (coast) residents were more likely to agree that recreation and tourism activities (59% vs. 52%), recreational fishing (39% vs. 27%), and commercial fishing (22% vs. 8%) should be allowed.

The only groups the majority of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents believed could benefit from these reserves are scientists / researchers (90%), people who live on the Oregon coast (58%), and government agencies (57%). Fewer than the majority believed that people recreating in marine areas (38%), local businesses (38%), people who do not live on the coast (36%), and people who fish recreationally (23%) or commercially (14%) would benefit. Compared to Phase 1 (coast) residents, Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents perceived greater benefits to scientists / researchers, people on the coast, government agencies, people recreating in marine areas, local businesses, and people who do not live on the coast.

Conversely, the only groups that the majority of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents believed would be harmed by these reserves are people who fish commercially (77%) or recreationally (57%). Compared to these Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents, those living on the coast (Phase 1) were significantly more likely to believe that people who recreate in marine areas, local businesses, and people who live along the coast could be harmed.

The majority of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents held positive attitudes toward marine reserves in general. These residents believed that marine reserves are beneficial (84%), thought these areas are generally good (84%), believed that marine reserves are positive (84%), and liked the idea of marine reserves (79%). These residents living along the I-5 corridor (Phase 2) were significantly more likely than those along the coast (Phase 1) to report positive attitudes toward marine reserves in general.

Respondents also held positive attitudes toward the specific topic of marine reserves in Oregon. Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents believed that these reserves are beneficial (82%) and positive (81%), thought these areas are good (81%), and liked the idea of these reserves (79%). Residents of the I-5 corridor (Phase 2) were more likely than those on the coast (Phase 1) to have positive attitudes toward marine reserves in Oregon.

There was strong agreement among Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents that marine reserves in Oregon would allow scientists to monitor these areas (91%), allow depleted populations to recover (86%), improve understanding of marine areas (85%), improve scientific understanding of marine areas (85%), protect the diversity of marine species (85%), benefit marine areas in general (85%), and increase species populations (80%). These residents were least likely to agree that these reserves would improve the economy (27%), benefit local communities (49%), and increase tourism (54%). Compared to residents living on the coast (Phase 1), those along the I-5 corridor (Phase 2) were more likely to agree with almost all of these potential advantages of marine reserves in Oregon.

In terms of potential disadvantages of marine reserves in Oregon, 59% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents agreed the reserves would reduce commercial fishing and 50% agreed these areas would reduce recreational fishing. More than 40% also agreed the reserves would be difficult to enforce (49%), cost a lot to manage (46%), and prevent people from using these areas (44%). These residents were least likely to agree that the reserves would not be effective in conserving marine


vii

areas (7%) and may cause some species to become overpopulated (31%). Phase 1 (coast) residents were more likely than Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents to agree that these marine reserves would cost a lot to manage, prevent people from using the areas, and not be effective in conservation.

In total, 90% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents would vote in support of establishing marine reserves in Oregon if they were to be given an opportunity to vote on this issue. Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents (90%) would be significantly more likely than Phase 1 (coast) residents (69%) to vote in favor of these reserves. Almost all Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were also extremely (49%) or moderately certain (40%) in these voting intentions. There were no differences in this certainty between Phase 1 (coast) residents and Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents.

In terms of future behaviors at these marine reserve sites, the largest percentage of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents (67%) would likely still visit these marine sites the same amount, whereas 23% would likely visit these sites more often. Only 10% of these respondents would visit less often. Those living along the I-5 corridor (Phase 2) indicated higher likelihood of visiting the same amount (67% vs. 45%), but there were no differences between these two samples in the proportions visiting more or less often.

In total, 69% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents agreed they trusted ODFW to provide truthful information about these marine reserves, 67% trusted this agency to manage the reserves using the best available information about non-human species, and 65% trusted ODFW to manage these reserves using the best available information about human uses of these areas. The lowest proportion of these respondents trusted ODFW to use public input to inform management of marine reserves (51%). Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were more likely to trust ODFW to manage marine reserves using the best available information about human uses of these areas (65% vs. 57%) and make good decisions regarding management of marine reserves (64% vs. 54%).

Among Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents, the most important values assigned to Oregon’s marine reserves were “protect habitat for marine species” (94% important [73% extremely]), “protect endangered species” (93% important [74% extremely]), “preserve unique wild plants or animals” (93% important [71% extremely]), “protect water quality” (92% important [74% extremely]), “preserve natural areas for scientific discovery or study” (92% important [63% extremely]), “protect endangered places” (92% important [67% extremely]), and “protect marine species, water, or plants that have value even if humans do not benefit from them” (91% important [67% extremely]). The least important values were “provide spiritual inspiration” (45% important [14% extremely]), “provide income for the tourism industry” (66% important [20% extremely]), “provide opportunities to maintain or regain physical or mental health through contact with nature” (72% important [28% extremely]), and “provide recreation opportunities” (72% important [24% extremely]). The most important values for reserves to provide were “protect marine species, water, or plants that have value even if humans do not benefit from them” (29%), “protect habitat for marine species” (28%), “protect endangered species” (27%), and “protect water quality” (27%). Least important were “provide spiritual inspiration” (2%), “just knowing that marine reserves exist” (2%), and “protect symbols of America’s heritage or culture” (2%).

In total, 80% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents believed there are areas of the ocean in the world that could be called wilderness, and 72% thought there are areas of the ocean along Oregon’s coast that could be called wilderness. Although still a majority, fewer (60%) believed that Oregon’s marine reserves could be called wilderness.

In addition, 41% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents believed that Oregon’s marine reserves should be designated as wilderness and 16% believed they should not be designated as wilderness. The largest proportion (43%), however, had a neutral opinion.

The majority of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents (61%) would not change their opinion of Oregon’s marine reserves if they were ever to be designated as wilderness, whereas 28% would have a more positive opinion about these areas and 11% would have a more negative opinion. Similarly,


viii

28% of these residents would like Oregon’s marine reserves more if they were ever designated as wilderness, only 10% would like them less, and the majority (63%) would not change their opinion.

The majority of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents (64%) would want to visit Oregon’s marine reserves the same amount as they do now if these areas were ever to be designated as wilderness, whereas 21% would visit these areas more often and 15% would visit less often.

Perceptions of Marine Areas and the Environment

The largest proportion of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents had a strong biocentric (nature oriented) general value orientation toward the environment (38%) and the smallest proportion had an anthropocentric orientation (human oriented, 8%). Another 26% of these respondents had a moderate biocentric orientation and 29% had a mixed anthropocentric – biocentric orientation. These Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents (38%) were slightly more likely than Phase 1 (coast) residents (34%) to have a strong biocentric orientation, whereas Phase 1 residents (12%) were slightly more likely than Phase 2 respondents (8%) to have an anthropocentric orientation. These differences, however, were not statistically significant.

The largest proportion of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents had a strong protectionist specific value orientation toward marine areas (42%) and the smallest proportion had a use related orientation toward these areas (human oriented, 10%). Another 28% of these residents had a moderate protectionist orientation toward marine areas and 21% had a mixed protection – use orientation. Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were significantly more likely than Phase 1 (coast) residents to have a strong protectionist orientation toward marine areas (42% vs. 26%), whereas Phase 1 residents were more likely to have mixed protection – use (28% vs. 21%) or just use orientations (16% vs. 10%) toward these areas.

Demographic and Residential Characteristics

In total, 51% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were female and 49% were male, the average age was 48 years old with 39% of the sample under 40 years of age and 61% 40 years of age and older (48% over 50 years), and the majority (62%) had a four-year college degree or an advanced degree (e.g., MS, PhD, Law, Medical). Only 2% of these respondents had someone in their household who was employed in the commercial fishing industry. Compared to Phase 1 (coast) residents, these Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were younger, more likely to be female, more highly educated, and less likely to have someone in their household employed in the commercial fishing industry.

The majority of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents had a liberal political orientation (51%), whereas 26% considered themselves to be moderate and 23% to be conservative.

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents had lived an average of 30 years in Oregon and 11 years at their current residence. Compared to Phase 1 (coast) residents, these Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) residents spent slightly less time living in Oregon and at their current residence.

The largest proportion of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents lived in large cities of 250,000 or more people (32%), followed by cities of 100,000 to 249,999 people (23%) or 25,000 to 99,999 people (21%), towns of 5,000 to 24,999 people (15%), and farm or rural areas with few people (6%). Few of these respondents (6%) owned a second home on the Oregon coast with these individuals using this home mainly for recreation and property investment.

The majority of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents lived in Portland region counties, such as Multnomah (31%), Washington (16%), and Clackamas (12%). An additional 11% lived in Lane county (e.g., Eugene), 8% lived in Marion county (e.g., Salem), 6% lived in Jackson county (e.g., Medford), 4% lived in Benton (e.g., Corvallis) and Polk counties (e.g., Dallas), and 2% lived in Linn county (e.g., Albany). In terms of cities, the largest proportion of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents lived in Portland (32%), followed by Eugene (8%), Beaverton (7%), Salem (4%), Corvallis (4%), and Hillsboro (3%).


ix

Predicting Support and Knowledge Associated with the Marine Reserves

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents who were more likely to vote in support of the marine reserves in Oregon had more favorable attitudes toward these reserves, had more biocentric or environmentally oriented value orientations, were more trusting of the managing agency (i.e., ODFW), and believed they were more knowledgeable of these reserves. The strongest predictor of intentions to vote in support of these marine reserves was attitudes toward the reserves (β = .67) followed by value orientations (β = .20), self-assessed knowledge (β = .08), and trust (β = .07). Taken together, these four concepts predicted 70% of the variance in intentions to vote in support for marine reserves in Oregon (R2 = .70). With the exception of self-assessed knowledge, these results from Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were identical to Phase 1 (coast) residents, as attitudes, value orientations, and trust were also significant predictors for Phase 1 (coast) residents.

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents who communicated with community or environmental groups about these reserves were more likely to support these areas. This result is consistent with Phase 1 (coast) residents. Fishing regulations brochures and discussions with government agency employees both had significant negative relationships with support for the reserves. This result, however, is not consistent with Phase 1 (coast) respondents. It is possible that the fishing regulations brochures are most predominately used by anglers, and these individuals are likely most concerned about limitations on fishing imposed by these marine reserves, so the negative relationship could be explained more by user group (i.e., anglers) than how individuals learn about the reserves. The strongest significant predictor of support for Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents was community or environmental groups (β = .27) and the weakest predictor was discussions with government agency employees (β = -.15). Taken together, these three sources only predicted 10% of the variance in intentions to support (R2 = .10), so clearly there are other information sources that predict support.

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents who learned about the marine reserves through newspapers, magazines / books, government agency websites, other websites, fishing regulations brochures, and work or school were more likely to believe they were more knowledgeable about these reserves (i.e., self-assessed knowledge). Both newspaper articles and government agency websites were also significant predictors for Phase 1 (coast) residents. The strongest significant predictor of self-assessed knowledge among Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents was newspaper articles (β = .22). This is also consistent with Phase 1 (coast) residents. The weakest significant predictor was websites other than social media and government websites (β = .11). Taken together, these six sources of information predicted 48% of the variance in self-assessed knowledge about the reserves (R2 = .48).

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents who learned about the marine reserves through newspaper articles, other websites, and friends or family were more likely to be more factually knowledgeable about these reserves. One variable, social websites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter), had a significant negative relationship with factual knowledge, suggesting that these respondents who learned about the reserves through social websites were less factually knowledgeable about these reserves. These results are identical to those for Phase 1 (coast) residents. The strongest significant predictor of factual knowledge among Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents was friends or family members (β = .29) and the weakest significant predictor was social websites (β = -.18). These four sources of information predicted 25% of the variance in factual knowledge (R2 = .25).

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents who were more likely to trust ODFW had more favorable attitudes toward these marine reserves, had more biocentric or environmentally oriented values, and were more likely to perceive ecological resources in the state as healthy. The strongest significant predictor of trust was attitudes toward the reserves (β = .31) followed by ecological concern (β = .23) and environmental value orientations (β = .13). These results are identical to those for Phase 1 (coast) residents. Taken together, these four concepts collectively predicted 15% of the variance in trust in ODFW for Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents (R2 = .15).


x

Implications and Recommendations

Although residents overwhelmingly perceived Oregon’s marine areas and resources (e.g., ocean, animals, fish) to be moderately or very healthy, fewer than one-third agreed that conditions have improved in recent years. These findings were consistent across both Phase 1 (coast) and Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents. It is clear that residents are concerned about Oregon’s marine areas and are an important constituency for agencies to work with, inform, and educate about these areas and efforts that agencies and others are taking to address threats in the areas.

The majority of residents, especially those in the I-5 corridor (Phase 2), believed that the government should do more to help protect marine areas in Oregon. In addition, less than one-third of respondents agreed that laws protecting these marine areas are too strict or that managers are already doing everything they can to protect these areas. It appears that a large percentage of residents, especially those in the I-5 corridor (Phase 2), believe there is room for improvement in agency management and policies associated with marine conservation in Oregon.

The organization that almost all residents believed should have the greatest influence in managing Oregon’s marine areas was the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), but the majority thought that a variety of other groups should also have a major influence (e.g., US Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Residents also trusted most of these groups to contribute to managing this state’s marine areas. Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were more likely than those on the coast (Phase 1) to trust most of these groups and organizations, and believe they should influence management of marine areas in Oregon. Regardless, residents clearly believe that ODFW should be the lead agency for managing these areas, but should also collaborate with several other agencies and organizations in these efforts. These groups should also work together and strive to build and foster trust among residents both along the coast and elsewhere in the state.

Although more than 60% of respondents have visited at least one of the five marine reserve sites in Oregon and the majority reported understanding the purpose of these reserves, fewer than 50% felt informed and knowledgeable about these reserves, knew where the reserves are located, and understood the role of science and public involvement in these reserves. Fewer than 30% understood how these reserves are managed, including rules and regulations associated with these areas. Factual knowledge about these reserves was also extremely low with an average of only 36% (Phase 2, I-5 corridor) and 43% (Phase 1, coast) of the factual questions about these reserves answered correctly (i.e., failing grades). In addition, only 17% of I-5 corridor (Phase 2) and 18% of coastal (Phase 1) residents agreed that it was easy to access and find information about the reserves, and only 7% of I-5 corridor (Phase 2) and 13% of coastal (Phase 1) residents agreed that managers have done a good job educating the public about these areas. Although coastal residents (Phase 1) were slightly more knowledgeable of these reserves compared to residents along the I-5 corridor (Phase 2), it is clear that resident knowledge about these reserves is minimal and much more is needed to inform and educate citizens about these areas. Major information campaigns are needed and most residents would prefer this information to be disseminated through conventional channels such as newspapers and television. Education and engagement catering to different audiences and settings, however, may not be needed because of the consistently low self-assessed and factual knowledge across settings. Managers may want to pinpoint messages and facts about the marine reserves and convey these to the entire public, as there are clearly some facts that are understood by few individuals. For example, fewer than 35% of Phase 1 (coast) residents and fewer than 25% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents knew: (a) that five marine reserves have been established and where these reserves are located, (b) how these areas are managed and any rules and regulations at these reserves, and (c) that non-extractive recreation and tourism activities are allowed in these reserves. These topic areas should offer a starting point for improving resident knowledge of these reserves.

The majority of residents believed that scientific research and non-extractive recreation activities should be allowed in Oregon’s marine reserves, but did not think that recreational or commercial fishing should be allowed in these areas. Although both types of fishing are not currently permitted


xi

in Oregon’s marine reserves, they are allowed in some of the adjacent marine protected areas. To avoid public confusion and contention, therefore, it is important for managers to clearly articulate to residents the differences between reserves and protected areas, activities that are allowed within each designation, and the rationale for these different allowances.

The group that residents believed would benefit most from Oregon’s marine reserves is scientists / researchers. Fewer than the majority believed that recreationists, businesses, people who do not live on the coast, and recreational and commercial anglers would benefit. In fact, many residents believed that these other groups, especially recreational and commercial fishing, would be harmed by the reserves. It is important, therefore, for agencies to inform and educate residents about potential benefits of these reserves for all groups, such as the potential for more tourism revenue and its impacts on local businesses, as well as the ability of fish populations to recover thereby enhancing long-term sustainability of the recreational and commercial fishing industries.

An overwhelming majority of residents had strong positive attitudes toward marine areas in general and marine reserves in Oregon in particular. In addition, almost 70% of coastal residents (Phase 1) and 90% of those along the I-5 corridor (Phase 2) would vote in support of these reserves. There was also strong agreement that these marine reserves would provide advantages (e.g., improve understanding, allow populations to recover, protect species diversity). There was significantly less agreement, however, regarding potential disadvantages associated with these reserves, such as reduced commercial fishing, increased management costs, difficulties with enforcement, and increased restrictions on people using the areas. Compared to Phase 1 (coast) residents, Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were more likely to agree with these advantages of the reserves and disagree with several of these disadvantages. These disadvantages, however, are still important and realistic because there will always be costs associated with placing sites under protected area designation. When informing and educating residents about these marine reserves, therefore, managers should strive for a transparent and balanced perspective emphasizing not only the potential advantages of these reserves, but also the realistic challenges, disadvantages, and costs likely to be encountered with these areas.

The majority of both Phase 1 (coast) and Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) residents agreed they trusted the managing agency (ODFW) to manage marine reserves in Oregon. This is important for several reasons. First, trust can influence support of agency goals and objectives. Residents who trust ODFW, for example, may be more likely to support future management actions associated with these reserves. Second, persuasion models (e.g., elaboration likelihood, heuristic systematic) suggest that perceived similarity and trust are important determinants of effective information and education campaigns (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993). Residents who trust an agency are often more motivated to attend to its informational and educational efforts. Campaign effectiveness may be lower with residents who are less trusting of the managing agency. Third, agencies should strive to understand constituent opinions, values, and goals because to preserve trust and a strong constituent base, management should be tailored to reflect these views whenever practical and feasible. If constituent views are not reflected in management, reasons for inconsistencies should be shared so they can be weighed in relation to considerations of trust. The public now demands and expects involvement in natural resource decision making and, if ignored, may resort to administrative appeals, court cases, and ballot initiatives. Managers, therefore, should seek positive relationships with residents and actively generate and maintain trust by fostering dialogue with citizens.

The largest proportions of both Phase 1 (coast) and Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) residents had biocentric (i.e., nature-oriented) value orientations toward the environment in general and protectionist orientations toward marine areas in particular. In addition, 60% of Phase 1 (coast) and 82% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents believed in protecting Oregon’s marine areas with little or no human utilization. Taken together, these results suggest that activities and management strategies encouraging deleterious effects on marine areas are unlikely to be supported by a large number of residents. Multivariate analyses also showed that value orientations can predict attitudes about marine reserves, behavioral intentions toward these areas, and trust in the agency responsible for


xii

managing these reserves, so knowing value orientations of residents can be useful for estimating possible reactions to potentially controversial management actions. In addition, value orientations are stable and resistant to change, so attempts to inform individuals with biocentric or protectionist value orientations to consider adopting attitudes and supporting actions that may be harmful to marine areas are unlikely to be successful.

Compared to Phase 1 (coast) residents, Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were less knowledgeable of Oregon’s marine reserves, but had more positive attitudes and were more supportive of the reserves, more likely to agree with advantages of the reserves, and less likely to agree with disadvantages of the reserves. Despite these differences, both Phase 1 (coast) and Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) residents were highly supportive of these reserves, suggesting relatively widespread support of Oregon’s marine reserve system.

Among Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents, the most important values they assigned to Oregon’s marine reserves focused on environmental and scientific attributes such as protecting habitat, species, and water quality, and preserving areas for scientific discovery or study. Their least important values were associated with human uses such as tourism and recreation activities. This is important because these values reported by residents align with the fundamental agency missions of these reserves to “conserve marine habitats and biodiversity” and “serve as scientific reference sites to learn about marine reserves and inform nearshore management.”

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were also asked about the idea of marine wilderness. Over 60% of these respondents believed that Oregon’s marine reserves could possibly be called marine wilderness in the future, but fewer than the majority believed these reserves should be called marine wilderness and even fewer would change their visitation to these areas or their opinions about these areas if they were ever called marine wilderness. Designating these reserves as marine wilderness, therefore, may not likely provide major appreciable benefits to residents, at least in the short-term. In addition, marine wilderness designation would not likely inspire any major public backlash. If Oregon ever wanted to move in this direction, reactions from this population would tend to be neutral to positive.

Both Phase 1 (coast) and Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents who were more likely to vote in support of the marine reserves in Oregon had more favorable attitudes toward these reserves, had more biocentric or environmentally oriented value orientations, and were more trusting of the managing agency (i.e., ODFW). These attitudes, value orientations, and trust explained approximately 70% of the variance in support for these marine reserves. From a management perspective, this suggests that it is critically important to take steps toward increasing citizen – agency trust even more, educating residents about these reserves to improve knowledge and foster positive attitudes toward these areas, and connecting agency outreach and communication efforts with residents’ value systems.

Both Phase 1 (coast) and Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents who were most factually knowledgeable of these marine reserves were most likely to learn about these reserves through newspaper articles, friends and family, and internet websites other than social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) and government websites. In fact, social media websites had a significant negative relationship with factual knowledge, suggesting that respondents who learned about the reserves through social media were less knowledgeable about the reserves. These sources of information, however, only explained less than 40% of the variance in factual knowledge across Phase 1 (coast) and Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents, suggesting that there are other predictors and sources that inform factual knowledge associated with these reserves. Regardless, this is important for informing managing agencies about avenues for disseminating communication campaigns about the Oregon marine reserve system.

Finally, this project used cross-sectional data at two points in time (coastal residents in 2013, I-5 corridor residents in 2016) to provide baseline snapshots of resident perceptions of marine reserves in Oregon at relatively early stages in the implementation of these areas. Although most residents would vote in favor of these reserves, had positive attitudes toward the benefits of these areas, and trusted ODFW to manage these reserves, cognitions can change over time. It is critically important, therefore, for managers to cultivate and maintain this support and trust, and monitor these social conditions over time (e.g., every 5-10 years) to ensure they do not deteriorate.


xiii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary ................................................................................................... ii

Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... xiii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................. xv

List of Figures ............................................................................................................ xvii

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1

Background and Rationale .............................................................................. 1

Project Goals and Objectives .......................................................................... 3

Conceptual Foundation .................................................................................... 4

Methods...................................................................................................................... 7

Phase 1 (Coastal Residents) ............................................................................ 7

Phase 2 (I-5 Corridor Residents) ..................................................................... 9

Results ........................................................................................................................ 11

Oregon Marine Areas in General .................................................................... 11

Activity Participation in Oregon Marine Areas ....................................... 11

Ecological Health of Oregon Natural Resources ..................................... 12

Beliefs about Oregon Marine Areas ........................................................ 13

Influence and Trust of Groups to Manage Oregon Marine Areas ........... 14

Oregon Marine Reserves ................................................................................. 16

Visitation and Activity Participation in Oregon Marine Reserves .......... 16

Self-Assessed Knowledge about Oregon Marine Reserves ..................... 17

Factual Knowledge about Oregon Marine Reserves ............................... 18

Sources of Information to Learn about Oregon Marine Reserves ........... 20

Beliefs about Oregon Marine Reserves ................................................... 23

Attitudes toward Oregon Marine Reserves .............................................. 25

Behavioral Intentions in Response to Oregon Marine Reserves ............. 30

Trust in ODFW to Manage Oregon Marine Reserves ............................. 32

Assigned Values for Oregon Marine Reserves ........................................ 32

Perceptions of Oregon’s Marine Reserves as “Marine Wilderness” ....... 34

Perceptions of Marine Areas and the Environment ......................................... 37

Environmental Value Orientations .......................................................... 37

Value Orientations toward Marine Areas ................................................ 39

Demographic and Residential Characteristics ................................................. 41


xiv

Predicting Support and Knowledge Associated with the Marine Reserves .... 44

Implications and Recommendations .......................................................................... 54

References .................................................................................................................. 60

Appendix A. Mail Questionnaire: Phase 1 (Coastal Residents) ................................ 65

Appendix B. Mail Questionnaire: Phase 2 (I-5 Corridor Residents) ......................... 77

Appendix C. Uncollapsed Total Percentages: Phase 2 (I-5 Corridor Residents) ...... 89


xv

LIST OF TABLES

1 Final sample sizes and response rates ........................................................................ 9

2 All activities participated in Oregon marine areas .............................................................. 11

3 Main activity participation in Oregon marine areas .................................................. 12

4 Perceived ecological health of marine areas and other natural resources in Oregon . 13

5 Beliefs about Oregon marine areas ............................................................................ 13

6 Influence that groups should have in managing marine areas in Oregon .................. 15

7 Trust in groups to contribute to managing marine areas in Oregon .......................... 16

8 Previous visitation to the Oregon marine reserves .................................................... 16

9 Oregon marine reserve sites previously visited ......................................................... 17

10 Self-assessed knowledge about Oregon marine reserves ........................................... 18

11 Factual knowledge about Oregon marine reserves .................................................... 20

12 Beliefs about current information regarding Oregon marine reserves ....................... 21

13 Sources of information to learn about Oregon marine reserves ................................ 22

14 Preferred source of information about Oregon marine reserves ................................ 23

15 Opinions about protection versus utilization of Oregon marine areas ....................... 23

16 Beliefs about what should be allowed in Oregon marine reserves ............................ 24

17 Beliefs that groups could benefit from the Oregon marine reserves ......................... 25

18 Beliefs that groups could be harmed by the Oregon marine reserves ........................ 25

19 Attitudes toward marine reserves in general .............................................................. 26

20 Attitudes toward establishing marine reserves in Oregon ......................................... 26

21 Attitudes toward potential advantages of Oregon marine reserves ........................... 27

22 Affective evaluations of potential advantages of Oregon marine reserves ................ 28

23 Attitudes toward potential disadvantages of Oregon marine reserves ....................... 29

24 Affective evaluations of potential disadvantages of Oregon marine reserves ........... 30

25 Intended voting behavior associated with Oregon marine reserves ........................... 30

26 Certainty of intended voting behavior associated with Oregon marine reserves ....... 30

27 Behavioral intentions associated with Oregon marine reserves ................................ 31

28 Potential changes in behavior in response to Oregon marine reserves ...................... 31

29 Trust in ODFW to manage Oregon marine reserves ................................................. 32

30 Reliability analyses of NEP items measuring environmental value orientations ...... 38

31 Environmental value orientations .............................................................................. 39

32 Reliability analyses of items measuring value orientations toward marine areas ..... 40


xvi

33 Value orientations toward marine areas ..................................................................... 41

34 Demographic characteristics ...................................................................................... 42

35 Residential characteristics .......................................................................................... 42

36 Additional demographic characteristics ..................................................................... 43

37 Location of residence ................................................................................................. 44

38 Reliability analysis of multiple cognitions associated with Oregon’s marine reserves .......................................................................................................... 45

39 Influence of cognitions and demographics on behavioral intentions to support Oregon’s marine reserves with all variables included .................................. 46

40 Influence of cognitions and demographics on behavioral intentions to support Oregon’s marine reserves with only significant variables included ............. 47

41 Influence of sources of information on behavioral intentions to support Oregon’s marine reserves with all variables included ............................................... 48

42 Influence of sources of information on behavioral intentions to support Oregon’s marine reserves with only significant variables included .......................... 49

43 Influence of sources of information on self-assessed knowledge of Oregon’s marine reserves with all variables included ............................................................... 49

44 Influence of sources of information on self-assessed knowledge of Oregon’s marine reserves with only significant variables included .......................................... 50

45 Influence of sources of information on factual knowledge of Oregon’s marine reserves with all variables included ............................................................... 51

46 Influence of sources of information on factual knowledge of Oregon’s marine reserves with only significant variables included ...................................................... 52

47 Influence of cognitions and demographics on trust in Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife with all variables included ............................................................ 52

48 Influence of cognitions and demographics on trust in Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife with only significant variables included ....................................... 53


xvii

LIST OF FIGURES

1 Current marine reserve sites in Oregon ..................................................................... 1

2 Assigned values for Oregon marine reserves ........................................................................ 33

3 Most important assigned values for Oregon marine reserves to provide ...................... 34

4 Applicability of wilderness to marine areas .......................................................................... 35

5 Beliefs about whether Oregon’s marine reserves should be designated as wilderness ............................................................................................................. 35

6 Change in positive or negative opinions if Oregon’s marine reserves were designated as wilderness ................................................................................................... 36

7 Change in extent that Oregon’s marine reserves would be liked or disliked if designated as wilderness ......................................................................................................... 36

8 Change in visitation if Oregon’s marine reserves were designated as wilderness ..... 37


1

INTRODUCTION

Background and Rationale

In 2012, the State of Oregon designated five marine reserves in its waters with the goals of

advancing scientific research, assessing impacts of reserve implementation, and conserving

habitats and biodiversity in areas “large enough to allow scientific evaluation of ecological

effects, but small enough to avoid significant adverse social and economic impacts on ocean

users and coastal communities” (OPAC, 2008a, 2008b). These reserves are Otter Rock north of

Newport, Redfish Rocks near Port Orford, Cape Falcon near Manzanita, Cape Perpetua south of

Yachats, and Cascade Head north of Lincoln City (Figure 1). The Oregon Department of Fish

and Wildlife (ODFW) is the lead agency for evaluating biological and social impacts associated

with these marine reserves, as well as overseeing management and monitoring of these areas.

Figure 1. Current marine reserve sites in Oregon


2

Prior to the establishment of these marine reserves, research had examined biological issues and

impacts associated with these areas. Several studies, for example, examined patterns in home

ranges of rockfish and other species at the marine reserve sites to determine if these reserves help

protect habitats and areas important to marine fisheries, and how large the reserves should be for

optimal effectiveness (e.g., Gallagher & Heppell, 2010; Heppell, Barth, & Reiff, 2008). Other

studies mapped seafloor structure, oceanographic conditions, habitat, and the presence,

abundance, and distribution of other species at these reserve sites (e.g., Amolo, 2010; Laferriere,

Matteson, & Johnson, 2011; Lanier, Romsos, & Goldfinger, 2007).

Conversely, the process for evaluating social and economic impacts associated with these marine

reserves primarily involved information from community evaluation teams made up of a small

number of stakeholders representing different interest groups (e.g., commercial anglers,

conservation groups, watershed councils, scientists; Murphy, 2010). Most additional data for

evaluating social and economic impacts of these reserves have been collected from town hall

meetings with residents, questionnaires given to specific industries or stakeholder groups (e.g.,

commercial and recreational anglers), interviews with community members, and observational

data (e.g., Norman et al., 2007; Oregon Sea Grant, 2008; Package & Conway, 2010). Taken

together, many of these efforts involved economic interest groups and vocal community

residents thought to be most directly affected by these marine reserves, which is beneficial as a

starting point for issue identification and clarification.

What has been lacking in the process of establishing and implementing the marine reserve

system in Oregon, however, is a comprehensive, systematic, and representative assessment of

resident perceptions regarding these reserves. A scientifically grounded and representative

selection of residents is required for generalizing information beyond select interest groups. This

scientifically grounded social science is needed for fulfilling the primary goal of the Oregon

marine reserves process of utilizing ecosystem based management (EBM) as its initial guiding

principle (OPAC, 2008a). EBM is an integrated approach to planning and management that

considers the entire ecosystem including humans, as opposed to approaches focusing on a single

species, activity, site, or community (McLeod & Leslie, 2009). The EBM process emphasizes

not only understanding interrelationships among ecosystem structure and functioning, but also

integrating representative social, economic, and institutional data and perspectives.


3

Establishing and implementing marine reserves based on EBM should be supported by planning

and management approaches such as integrated coastal zone management (ICZM) and marine

spatial planning (MSP; Dalton, 2005; McLeod & Leslie, 2009). Integrating both sound biological

information and comprehensive social science research into these approaches offers the best

opportunity for reserves to provide scientific, ecological, and social benefits, as well as equitable

inputs into the planning and management of marine resources (Clark, 1996). These approaches

also represent opportunities for plans and management to be informed by various community

interests, and provide for broad participation and the resolution of any potential areas of conflict

(Crowfoot & Wondolleck, 1990; Decker, Krueger, Baer, Knuth, & Richmond, 1996; Lück, 2008;

Needham & Szuster, 2011; Perry, Needham, Cramer, & Rosenberger, 2014).

As a result of this emphasis on EBM for the Oregon marine reserves, a number of agencies have

emphasized the need for comprehensive and representative information about public knowledge,

attitudes, and behavior in response to these reserves. According to the initial OPAC Marine

Reserve Policy Guidelines (2008a), for example, opinions from the broader public, including

ocean users and other local communities, must be integrated into the selection, implementation,

regulation, and monitoring of Oregon’s marine reserves.

Project Goals and Objectives

This project, therefore, utilized comprehensive and representative samples of residents (i.e., the

voting public): (a) along the Oregon coast (Phase 1; Needham et al., 2013; Perry et al., 2014),

and (b) in the most heavily populated region of Oregon (Portland to Ashland between the Coast

and Cascade Mountain Ranges [I-5 corridor]; Phase 2) to understand their knowledge, attitudes,

and behaviors in response to the reserves. With these reserves still in their infancy, understanding

resident perceptions of these areas is crucial. This project, therefore: (a) generated information

that will allow planners and policy makers to predict likely impacts of these reserves on

residents; (b) yielded data about how much these individuals know about the reserves, which can

guide information and education to inform citizens about these areas; and (c) provided empirical

information that can be used for guiding decisions associated with managing these reserves that

are within public tolerance limits. Specific objectives of this project were to understand resident:

Awareness of these marine reserves and sources of information used for learning about

these areas.

Knowledge of the characteristics, benefits, and constraints of these marine reserves.


4

Attitudes of support and opposition toward these reserves (i.e., favor, disfavor, like, dislike).

Perceptions about the future effectiveness of these reserves in meeting management goals.

Activities that residents believe should and should not be allowed to occur in these reserves.

Behaviors in response to these reserves and how residents may change their use of these

areas in the future (e.g., increase or displace any visitation / recreation use).

Sociodemographic characteristics.

Conceptual Foundation

These objectives necessitated examining several cognitive concepts including public knowledge,

norms, and attitudes regarding these reserves. It is important to measure and understand these

cognitions because they can influence behavior, including support of and receptivity toward

specific planning and management actions such as designating and monitoring marine reserves.

These concepts are integrated and build on each other in a number of theories such as the

cognitive hierarchy, theory of reasoned action, and theory of planned behavior (Eagly &

Chaiken, 1993; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010; Fulton, Manfredo, & Lipscomb, 1996; Manfredo, Teel,

& Bright, 2004; Needham, Haider, & Rollins, 2016; Vaske & Donnelly, 1999).

The foundations of some of these theories are values. Research has typically addressed two kinds

of values that Brown (1984) described as “held” and “assigned.” Held values (e.g., honesty,

fairness, respect for life) are abstract and enduring cognitions concerned with desirable end states

(e.g., freedom, success) and modes of conduct (e.g., honesty, politeness). Held values are basic

modes of thinking shaped early in life by family or other peers, few in number, relatively stable

over time, change slowly, guide life decisions, and transcend situations and objects (Rokeach,

1973). Assigned values reflect comparative judgements that a person makes about things (i.e.,

relative importance given to something in relation to other things; Brown, 1984). Also called

benefits (e.g., Angulo-Valdes & Hatcher, 2010), assigned values are more situation-specific and

changeable than held values (McIntyre, Moore, & Yuan, 2008). For example, a person may

respect other forms of life across many contexts (held values), but the relative importance that he

or she places on habitat preservation and non-consumptive recreation opportunities that protect

species (assigned values) may vary among settings. The situation-specific nature of assigned

values potentially makes them more useful to managers of protected areas such as marine

reserves. Not only are assigned values less abstract than held values (Kendal, Ford, Anderson, &


5

Farrar, 2015), assigned values also offer insight into attributes that are valued about a particular

place (and to what degree) and perhaps offer a clearer understanding of public perceptions

toward a specific place (Seymour, Curtis, Pannell, Allan, & Roberts, 2010).

Value orientations reflect an expression of more general held values and are revealed through the

pattern and direction of multiple basic beliefs that an individual holds regarding a situation or

issue. Fulton et al. (1996), for example, asked individuals how strongly they disagreed or agreed

with statements such as “humans should manage wild animal populations so that humans

benefit” and “wildlife should have equal rights as humans.” Taken together, these items

measured values and beliefs related to wildlife use and protection. Patterns in responses can then

be combined into a value orientation scale called the protection – use continuum. Other value

orientations such as the anthropocentric – biocentric continuum, domination (utilitarianism), and

mutualism (social affiliation, caring) have also been examined for fisheries, forests, coral reefs,

and the broader environment (Dunlap, Van Liere, Mertig, & Jones, 2000; Manfredo et al., 2004;

Vaske & Manfredo, 2012 for reviews). These values and orientations can be used for identifying

groups with divergent preferences for management, informing attitudes toward management, and

anticipating receptivity to and polarization over prevention and mitigation strategies. In the

context of this project, resident value orientations toward the environment in general and marine

areas in particular could serve as a foundation for their attitudes toward marine reserves and

activities they feel should and should not be allowed to occur in these areas. Residents with

biocentric or nature oriented values, for example, may be more supportive of protecting marine

areas in the form of designated reserves (Needham, 2010).

Individuals hold values and beliefs regarding a particular object, situation, or issue, and these

cognitions tend be related to knowledge about the topic. There are two common types of

knowledge (Perry et al., 2014; Wann & Branscombe, 1995). First, self-assessed or perceived

knowledge is where a person believes he or she is knowledgeable and providing the correct

answer. This could be measured, for example, by asking “how aware do you feel about this

issue?” Second, factual knowledge is more concrete where the person either does or does not

know the information and there is a factually correct answer. Questions measuring factual

knowledge may take the form of true / false or multiple choice answers, with only one answer

being correct at the time. Studies have examined public knowledge of natural resource issues

with most finding that the public often lacks detailed knowledge of many resource issues and

concerns (e.g., Needham & Little, 2013; Perry et al., 2014; Sutton & Ditton, 2001; Teel, Bright,


6

Manfredo, & Brooks, 2006; Vaske, Needham, Stafford, Green, & Petchenik, 2006). This project

examined resident self-assessed and factual knowledge of the marine reserve system in Oregon,

sources of information used for learning about these reserves, and knowledge about marine

reserve characteristics, benefits, and concerns.

These types of knowledge can inform attitudes, which are tendencies to evaluate a specific

object, situation, or issue with some degree of favor or disfavor, or like or dislike (Eagly &

Chaiken, 1993; Fishbein & Ajzen, 2010; Fishbein, & Manfredo, 1992). Unlike values and value

orientations, humans have many attitudes that are often specific to particular topics. This project

examined general attitudes of residents toward marine reserves (i.e., favor, disfavor) and also

their specific attitudes regarding the perceived effectiveness of these areas in meeting

management goals. These attitudes can influence intentions to engage in a behavior, and these

intentions can subsequently influence actual behaviors (Eagly & Chaiken, 1993; Fishbein &

Ajzen, 2010; Fishbein, & Manfredo, 1992). This project measured intentions of residents in

relation to the marine reserves by asking if they would vote for or against these reserves, and also

whether designation of these reserves could alter their visitation behavior.

Understanding cognitions such as knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors in the context of marine

reserves is important because it improves understanding of how the public responds to these

reserves, as well as possibly predicts future behavior associated with these areas. Individuals

with biocentric or mutualistic values (i.e., nature oriented) and high knowledge of marine

reserves, for example, may have more positive attitudes toward these areas and therefore be

likely to vote in support of these reserves. Conversely, those who are less aware of benefits of

these reserves may have more negative attitudes and vote against these areas. These cognitions

can also be targeted for change, which is important when designing and evaluating informational

and educational outreach efforts and campaigns. For example, if individuals have negative

attitudes toward marine reserves and these attitudes are largely shaped by a lack of knowledge of

the benefits and rationale of these areas, agencies such as ODFW can target communication and

education campaigns to increase knowledge and potentially change attitudes.

METHODS

Data for measuring these cognitions and addressing this project’s objectives were collected in

two phases. Phase 1 focused on residents along the Oregon coast, whereas Phase 2 focused on


7

residents in the most heavily populated region of Oregon (Portland to Ashland between the Coast

and Cascade Mountain Ranges [I-5 corridor]). Detailed results of Phase 1 were reported in

Needham et al. (2013), but some of these results are statistically examined in relation to Phase 2

data in this report here for comparison purposes.

Phase 1 (Coastal Residents)

Data for Phase 1 were obtained from questionnaires administered by mail in late 2012 and early

2013 to a sample of residences along the Oregon coast selected randomly from postal records.

This sample was obtained from Marketing Systems Group (MSG) in Pennsylvania, which uses

the most recent US Postal Service delivery sequence files to compile sampling lists. Respondents

were adult residents who were 18 years of age and older. A sample of 2,600 addresses was

equally divided into two main subpopulations: (a) residents living near the five marine reserves

(i.e., communities of place), and (b) residents along the rest of the coast (i.e., general coastal

sample). The 1,300 addresses in the communities of place were distributed equally among five

specific areas corresponding to each current marine reserve location (i.e., 260 addresses for

each). A 10-mile radius was drawn around the land point nearest to the center of each reserve

and communities within this radius were included in the communities of place delineation. The

exact size and location of these areas were adjusted slightly in cases where they would split

communities inside and outside of the sample, and in cases where they overlapped with another

reserve’s community of place so that communities were not split or overlapping. The other half

of the sample addresses (i.e., 1,300) was spread throughout the rest of the coast and included

areas seaward of the Coast Range excluding those in the five communities of place.

Three separate mailings were implemented to collect data. Multiple mailings are standard for

social science studies and necessary for increasing response rates and ensuring generalizability

and representativeness of samples (Dillman, Smyth, & Christian, 2014; Vaske, 2008). Residents

were first sent on November 9, 2012 a mail packet containing a questionnaire booklet (Appendix

A), postage paid business reply envelope, and letter requesting their participation. On November

30, 2012, a postcard reminder was sent to those who had not yet completed the questionnaire

requesting their participation. On January 11, 2013, a final full mailing (i.e., letter, questionnaire,

reply envelope) was sent to those who had still not completed and mailed back the questionnaire.

No further mailings were sent, so residents were considered a nonresponse if they did not

complete the questionnaire following these three contacts. To ensure that respondents did not


8

complete the questionnaire more than once, each residence that was sampled was given a unique

identification (ID) code that was printed on the questionnaire. This is a standard approach for

avoiding duplicate responses (i.e., people completing the questionnaire more than once), which

could make the sample nonrandom and bias the representativeness and generalizability of results

(Vaske, 2008). This ID code also allowed the researchers to identify who completed the

questionnaire so that respondents were not contacted again in any additional correspondence.

In total, 357 questionnaires were undeliverable (e.g., incorrect address, vacant household,

moved) and n = 595 completed questionnaires were returned, yielding a 27% overall response

rate (595 / 2,600 – 357; Table 1). This response rate is relatively consistent with many other

recent mail surveys asking the public about natural resource issues (see Connelly, Brown, &

Decker, 2003; Vaske, 2008 for reviews). The sample size for residents living in the communities

of place was n = 326 (30% response rate) and the sample size for those living along the rest of

the coast (i.e., general coastal sample) was n = 269 (23% response rate). The combined sample

size of n = 595 allows generalizations about the population of Oregon coastal residents at a

margin of error of ± 4% at the 95% confidence level, which is better than the conventional

standard of ± 5% that has been widely accepted and adopted in human dimensions of natural

resources research (Vaske, 2008). Margins of error for each subpopulation were ± 5.4% at the

95% confidence level for residents of the communities of place and ± 6% at the 95% confidence

level for those living along the rest of the coast.

To check for potential nonresponse bias, residents who completed a mail questionnaire were

compared against those who did not (i.e., nonrespondents). A sample of n = 202 nonrespondents

was telephoned in March 2013 and asked 10 specific questions from the questionnaire. There

were no substantive differences in responses between those who responded to the mail survey

and those who did not (i.e., completed telephone nonresponse bias check), so the data did not

need to be weighted based on this nonresponse bias check. The data did, however, need to be

weighted by population proportions based on the most recent US Census information for number

of households to ensure that the samples and questionnaire responses were statistically

representative of the broader target populations (see Needham et al., 2013 for weighting details).


9

Table 1. Final sample sizes and response rates

Site

Mailed Questionnaires

Undeliverable Questionnaires

Completed Questionnaires (n)

Response Rate (%)

Phase 1 (Coastal Residents)

Cape Falcon 260 30 70 30 Cascade Head 260 54 50 24 Otter Rock 260 34 69 31 Cape Perpetua 260 44 63 29 Redfish Rocks 260 51 74 35 Rest of the Coast 1300 144 269 23 Total 2600 357 595 27

Phase 2 (I-5 Corridor Residents)

Total 2800 206 530 20

Phase 2 (I-5 Corridor Residents)

Data for Phase 2 were obtained from questionnaires administered using a mixed-mode (i.e., mail,

internet) survey in early 2016 to a sample of 2,800 residential addresses in the most heavily

populated region of Oregon (Portland to Ashland between the Coast and Cascade Mountain

Ranges [I-5 corridor]). This sample was selected randomly from postal records and obtained

from MSG. Respondents were adult residents who were 18 years of age and older.

Four separate mailings were implemented to collect data. First, residents were sent on January

20, 2016 a postcard pre-notification with the option to complete the questionnaire on a Qualtrics

internet website using individual access codes. Second, those who had not completed the

questionnaire on the website were sent on February 24, 2016 a mail packet containing a

questionnaire booklet (Appendix B), postage paid business reply envelope, and letter requesting

their participation. Third, a postcard reminder (with the option to complete the questionnaire on

the website) was sent on March 18, 2016 to those who had not yet completed the questionnaire

requesting their participation. Fourth, a final full mailing (i.e., letter, questionnaire, reply

envelope) was sent on April 20, 2016 to those who had still not completed the questionnaire. No

further mailings were sent, so residents were considered a nonresponse if they did not complete

the questionnaire following these four contacts. A unique identification (ID) code was given to

each sample member to ensure they did not complete the questionnaire more than once and also

allow the researchers to identify who completed the questionnaire so that respondents were not

contacted again in any additional correspondence.

Overall, 206 questionnaires were undeliverable (e.g., incorrect address, vacant household,

moved) and n = 530 questionnaires were completed, yielding a 20% overall response rate (530 /


10

2,800 – 206; Table 1). This sample size allows generalizations about the population of residents

in this most heavily populated region of Oregon at a margin of error of ± 4% at the 95%

confidence level. To check for potential nonresponse bias, a sample of n = 75 nonrespondents

was telephoned in May 2016 and asked 11 specific questions from the questionnaire. There were

no substantive differences in responses between those who responded to the survey via mail or

the internet versus those who did not (i.e., completed telephone nonresponse bias check), so the

data did not need to be weighted based on this nonresponse bias check. The data did, however,

need to be weighted by demographics (e.g., age; male, female, transgender) based on the most

recent US Census information for this region to ensure that the sample and questionnaire

responses were statistically representative of the broader target population.

Results in this report are grouped into subsections according to the project objectives and

questionnaire items. Within each subsection, analyses are conducted to reveal results from Phase

2 (Portland to Ashland between the Coast and Cascade Mountain Ranges [I-5 corridor])

respondents and also compare these results to those from Phase 1 (coast) respondents where

applicable. Phase 1 results were reported in Needham et al. (2013). Comparisons between Phase

1 and Phase 2 respondents are not possible for every questionnaire item, as some items in the

Phase 1 questionnaire were removed and replaced with different items in Phase 2.

Percentages, crosstabulations, and bivariate and multivariate inferential statistical tests were used

for analyzing and presenting these results. Many of these tests produce p-values and when a p-

value associated with any test (i.e., 2, t, F) presented in this report is p < .05, a statistically

significant relationship or difference was observed. In addition to these tests of significance,

effect size statistics (e.g., phi , Cramer’s V, eta η) were used for examining the strength of

relationships. Effect sizes of .10 typically suggest “minimal” (Vaske, 2008) or “weak” (Cohen,

1988) relationships or differences. Effect sizes of .30 are usually considered “medium” or

“typical,” and .50 or greater are “large” or “substantial” relationships or differences; larger effect

sizes imply stronger relationships or differences. To highlight findings, data were recoded into

major response categories (e.g., agree, disagree), but descriptive results of all uncollapsed

questions (e.g., strongly, slightly agree) for Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) are in Appendix C. Descriptive

results of all uncollapsed questions for Phase 1 (coast) were reported in Needham et al. (2013).


11

RESULTS

Oregon Marine Areas in General

Activity Participation in Oregon Marine Areas. In total, 88% of Phase 2 respondents (Portland

to Ashland between the Coast and Cascade Mountain Ranges [I-5 corridor]) have visited marine

areas in Oregon, whereas only 12% have never visited these areas. Residents were then asked to

select all of the activities in which they have ever participated at marine areas in Oregon. Table 2

shows that sightseeing (89%), viewing marine animals (80%), and exploring tide pools (76%)

were the most common activities in this state’s marine areas among Phase 2 (I-5 corridor)

respondents. The least popular activities were commercial fishing (2%), scuba diving or

snorkeling (6%), and surfing or boogie boarding (13%). There were a few statistically significant

differences between Phase 1 (coast) and Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents with coastal residents

being significantly more likely to view marine animals (86% vs. 80%) and participate in boating

and fishing activities such as motorized boating (43% vs. 26%), non-motorized boating (28% vs.

21%), non-charter recreational fishing (55% vs. 32%), charter recreational fishing (32% vs.

23%), and commercial fishing (10% vs. 2%).

Table 2. All activities participated in Oregon marine areas a

Phase 1 (Coast)

Phase 2 (I-5 Corridor)

2 value

p value

Sightseeing 88 89 .48 .488 .02

Viewing marine animals (whales, seals) 86 80 7.28 .007 .09

Exploring tide pools 77 76 .08 .776 .01

Swimming 38 36 .45 .501 .02

Non-charter recreational fishing 55 32 51.39 < .001 .23

Motorized boating 43 26 27.78 < .001 .17

Charter recreational fishing 32 23 10.66 .001 .10

Non-motorized boating (canoe, kayak) 28 21 6.28 .012 .08

Surfing / boogie boarding 13 13 .04 .842 .01

Other b 14 9 6.99 .008 .08

Scuba diving / snorkeling 6 6 .23 .635 .02

Commercial fishing 10 2 29.09 < .001 .16 a Cell entries are percentages (%) of respondents who have ever participated in the activity in Oregon’s marine areas. b Most common “other” activities listed include: beachcombing, clamming, crabbing, and hiking / walking.

Respondents were then asked to select the one main activity in which they participated the most

at marine areas in Oregon. Table 3 shows that sightseeing (45%), exploring tidepools (17%),

non-charter recreational fishing (13%), and viewing marine animals (11%) were the most


12

popular main activities among Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents. The least popular activities

were scuba diving or snorkeling (0%), motorized boating (1%), commercial fishing (1%), and

charter recreational fishing (1%). There were a few statistically significant differences between

Phase 1 (coast) and Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents with more Phase 2 respondents

considering sightseeing (45% vs. 35%) and exploring tidepools (17% vs. 8%) as their main

activities, whereas those living on the coast (Phase 1) were more likely to specify non-charter

recreational fishing (22% vs. 13%) as their main activity.

Table 3. Main activity participation in Oregon marine areas a

Phase 1 (Coast) Phase 2 (I-5 Corridor)

Sightseeing 35 45

Exploring tide pools 8 17

Non-charter recreational fishing 22 13

Viewing marine animals (whales, seals) 16 11

Other 6 4

Surfing / boogie boarding 2 3

Swimming 1 3

Non-motorized boating (canoe, kayak) 2 2

Motorized boating 4 1

Commercial fishing 3 1

Charter recreational fishing 2 1

Scuba diving / snorkeling 1 0 a Cell entries are percentages (%) of respondents who indicated this was their main activity in Oregon’s marine areas.

2(11, N = 940) = 61.30, p < .001, V = .25.

Ecological Health of Oregon Natural Resources. Respondents were asked to rate how

ecologically healthy they believed seven different natural resources were in Oregon on 9-point

scales of 0 “not healthy” to 8 “very healthy.” For analysis purposes, answers were recoded into

dichotomous responses of “not at all or slightly healthy” (0 – 3 on scale) and “moderately or very

healthy” (4 – 8 on scale). Table 4 shows that two-thirds or more of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor)

respondents believed that wildlife (78%), forests (74%), other marine animals (71%), marine

areas (i.e., ocean; 71%), rivers and streams (70%), marine fish (69%), and bays and estuaries

(65%) were moderately or very healthy in this state. There were no statistically significant

differences between respondents on the coast (Phase 1) and those living from Portland to

Ashland between the Coast and Cascade Mountain Ranges (i.e., I-5 corridor, Phase 2).


13

Table 4. Perceived ecological health of marine areas and other natural resources in Oregon a

Phase 1 (Coast) Phase 2 (I-5 Corridor) 2 value p value

Wildlife in Oregon 77 78 .10 .758 .01

Forests in Oregon 75 74 .17 .681 .01

Other marine animals in Oregon 75 71 1.11 .292 .03

Marine areas (ocean) in Oregon 73 71 .33 .568 .02

Rivers and streams in Oregon 71 70 .05 .822 .01

Marine fish in Oregon 72 69 .94 .333 .03

Bays and estuaries in Oregon 66 65 .03 .872 .01 a Cell entries are percentages (%) of respondents who perceived the resource to be “moderately or very healthy” (4 – 8 on scale).

Beliefs about Oregon Marine Areas. Respondents were asked the extent they disagreed or

agreed with eight statements about marine areas in Oregon. Table 5 shows that the highest

proportion of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents (69%) believed the government should do more

to help protect marine areas in Oregon. In addition, 39% agreed that people who fish

commercially are harming marine areas in Oregon, whereas 27% agreed fishing is not harming

marine areas in Oregon. Overall, 31% agreed that the condition of marine areas in Oregon has

improved in recent years, followed by 21% who agreed that managers are doing everything they

can to protect marine areas in this state. Furthermore, 15% agreed that people fishing

recreationally are harming Oregon’s marine areas. Finally, only 8% agreed that laws protecting

marine areas in Oregon are too strict.

Table 5. Beliefs about Oregon marine areas a


The government should do more to help protect marine areas in Oregon

50 69 37.63 < .001 .19

People who fish commercially are harming marine areas in Oregon

41 39 .25 .619 .02

The condition of marine areas in Oregon has improved in recent years

34 31 1.01 .315 .03

Fishing is not harming marine areas in Oregon

38 27 14.31 < .001 .12

Managers are doing everything they can to protect marine areas in Oregon

30 21 8.99 .003 .09

People who purchase / consume seafood are harming marine areas in Oregon

16 16 .02 .884 .01

People who fish recreationally are harming marine areas in Oregon

14 15 .07 .796 .01

Laws protecting marine areas in Oregon are already too strict

22 8 39.49 < .001 .19

a Cell entries are percentages (%) of respondents who “agreed” with the statement.


14

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were significantly more likely (69%) than those on the coast

(Phase 1, 50%) to agree the government should do more to help protect marine areas in Oregon.

Conversely, Phase 1 (coast) respondents were significantly more likely than Phase 2 (I-5

corridor) respondents to agree that fishing is not harming marine areas in Oregon (38% vs. 27%),

managers are doing everything they can to protect Oregon’s marine areas (30% vs. 21%), and

laws protecting marine areas in the state are too strict (22% vs. 8%).

Influence and Trust of Groups to Manage Oregon Marine Areas. Respondents were asked how

much influence they believed 12 different individuals, groups, and organizations should have in

contributing to the management of marine areas in Oregon. These questions were asked on 9-

point scales of 0 “no influence” to 8 “strong influence,” which were recoded into dichotomous

responses of “no or some influence” (0 – 3 on scale) and “moderate or strong influence” (4 – 8

on scale). Results in Table 6 show that for nearly all groups listed, more than 50% of Phase 2 (I-

5 corridor) respondents believed that each should have moderate or strong influence.

Respondents believed the strongest influence should be from the Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife (94%), followed by the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (89%), US Fish and

Wildlife Service (88%), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (87%), university

researchers (87%), people who live along the Oregon coast (80%), local governments (78%), and

environmental organizations (74%). These respondents believed the least influence should be

from people who do not live on the Oregon coast (44%). There were a number of differences in

these perceptions between the two phases, as Phase 2 respondents living from Portland to

Ashland between the Coast and Cascade Mountain Ranges (I-5 corridor) were significantly more

likely than those on the coast (Phase 1) to think that nine of these 12 individuals, groups, and

organizations should have more influence in contributing to the management of marine areas in

Oregon (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, US

Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, university

researchers, local governments, environmental organizations, people who recreate in marine

areas, people who do not recreate in marine areas).


15

Table 6. Influence that groups should have in managing marine areas in Oregon a

Phase 1 (Coast)


2 value

p value

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 84 94 31.17 < .001 .17

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department 78 89 27.77 < .001 .16

US Fish and Wildlife Service 79 88 15.17 < .001 .12

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 77 87 20.10 < .001 .14

University researchers 72 87 32.89 < .001 .18

People who live along the Oregon coast 77 80 .88 .347 .03

Local governments 71 78 7.42 .006 .09

Environmental organizations 55 74 44.24 < .001 .21

People who fish commercially 73 68 3.57 .060 .06

People who fish recreationally 62 66 1.77 .183 .04

People who recreate in marine areas 58 64 3.94 .047 .06

People who do not live on the Oregon coast 25 44 39.07 < .001 .20 a Cell entries are percentages (%) of respondents who believed the group should have “moderate or strong influence” (4 – 8 on scale).

Respondents were also asked how much trust they had in each of these individuals, groups, and

organizations to positively contribute to the management of marine areas in Oregon. These

questions were asked on 9-point scales of 0 “no trust” to 8 “high trust.” For analysis purposes,

responses were recoded into dichotomous responses of “no or some trust” (0 – 3 on scale) and

“moderate or high trust” (4 – 8 on scale). Table 7 shows the groups receiving the highest trust

from Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (87%),

university researchers (87%), Oregon Parks and Recreation Department (84%), National Oceanic

and Atmospheric Administration (83%), and US Fish and Wildlife Service (81%). Groups

trusted the least were people who do not live on the Oregon coast (31%), those who fish

commercially (43%), and people who recreate in marine areas (45%). Phase 2 (I-5 corridor)

respondents had statistically higher trust in university researchers, environmental organizations,

people who do not live on the Oregon coast, and most federal, state, and local agencies (e.g.,

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Fish and Wildlife Service, local governments). In

contrast, respondents on the coast (Phase 1) had higher trust in people who live along the Oregon

coast and fish commercially.


16

Table 7. Trust in groups to contribute to managing marine areas in Oregon a

Phase 1 (Coast)


2 value

p value

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 76 87 20.33 < .001 .14

University researchers 74 87 28.33 < .001 .16

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department 69 84 34.41 < .001 .18

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 72 83 19.54 < .001 .14

US Fish and Wildlife Service 76 81 3.95 .047 .06

People who live along the Oregon coast 78 71 4.76 .029 .07

Environmental organizations 49 68 39.23 < .001 .19

Local governments 57 67 10.01 .002 .10

People who fish recreationally 51 50 .04 .836 .01

People who recreate in marine areas 43 45 .59 .440 .02

People who fish commercially 54 43 12.17 < .001 .11

People who do not live on the Oregon coast 18 31 23.12 < .001 .15 a Cell entries are percentages (%) of respondents who have “moderate or high trust” (4 – 8 on scale) in the group.

Oregon Marine Reserves

Visitation and Activity Participation in Oregon Marine Reserves. The questionnaires contained

a detailed map of the five marine reserve sites in Oregon (see Figure 1 and Appendices A and B)

and asked respondents questions about their visitation and activities at these sites. First,

respondents were asked if they had ever visited at least one of these five reserve sites identified

on the map. Table 8 shows that 60% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents had visited at least one

of the reserve sites, whereas 40% had not visited. By comparison, Phase 1 (coast) respondents

were slightly more likely (67%) to have visited at least one of these reserve sites.

Table 8. Previous visitation to the Oregon marine reserves a


Yes (visited at least one reserve) 67 60

No (not visited any reserve) 33 40

a Cell entries are percentages (%). 2(1, N = 1034) = 4.16, p = .041, = .06.

The Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) questionnaire then asked how many trips these visitors had made to

the marine reserve site(s) in the past 12 months. This question was not asked in the Phase 1

(coast) questionnaire. Among Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents who had visited at least one of

these reserve sites before, equal proportions had either visited the site(s) but not in the past 12

months (25%) or visited just once during this time (25%). The largest percentage of these


17

previous visitors had visited the site(s) two or three times (33%). Fewer had visited four to six

times (10%) or more than six times (7%). The average was 2.5 visits in the past 12 months.

Respondents were then asked which of these sites they had visited. Results in Table 9 show that

among all Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents (i.e., not just those who had visited at least one of

these reserves), the largest proportion had previously visited Otter Rock (43%), followed by

Cascade Head (39%), Cape Perpetua (26%), Cape Falcon (23%), and Redfish Rocks (10%).

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were significantly more likely than those on the coast (Phase

1) to have visited Cascade Head (39% vs. 33%), whereas coastal residents (Phase 1) were more

likely to have visited Cape Perpetua (38% vs. 26%) and Redfish Rocks (24% vs. 10%). There

were no statistical differences between these two sample populations in their visitation to Otter

Rock and Cape Falcon marine reserve sites.

Table 9. Oregon marine reserve sites previously visited a


Otter Rock 45 43 2.16 .340 .05

Cascade Head 33 39 12.91 .002 .11

Cape Perpetua 38 26 15.81 < .001 .12

Cape Falcon 23 23 2.99 .225 .05

Redfish Rocks 24 10 39.87 < .001 .19

Total (visited at least one of these sites) 67 60 4.16 .041 .06 a Cell entries are percentages (%) of all respondents who have previously visited the site.

Self-Assessed Knowledge about Oregon Marine Reserves. Nine questions measured respondent

self-assessed knowledge about the marine reserves in Oregon. Respondents were asked “before

receiving this survey, were you familiar with the topic of marine reserves in Oregon?” Residents

were also asked both how well informed and how knowledgeable they felt about the topic of

marine reserves in this state. In addition, the questionnaire asked respondents how much they felt

they understood about a number of issues associated with these reserves (e.g., their purpose, how

they would be managed, where they are located). Results in Table 10 show that half (50%) of

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents felt they understood the purpose of these reserves. However,

only 40% felt they understood the role of science in these reserves, 35% were familiar with these

reserves, 25% understood the role of public involvement in these reserves, 23% felt informed

about the topic of marine reserves in Oregon, and 21% felt knowledgeable about these reserves.

Furthermore, only 17% understood where the reserves were located and rules and regulations

associated with these reserves, and only 15% understood how the reserves would be managed.


18

Across all of these self-assessed knowledge questions, Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents

reported lower familiarity, understanding, and knowledge compared to Phase 1 (coast)

respondents, and this difference was statistically significant for six of the nine questions. For

example, 71% of Phase 1 (coast) residents and only 35% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents

felt familiar with these marine reserves, and 44% of Phase 1 (coast) residents versus 23% of

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents felt informed about these reserves.

Table 10. Self-assessed knowledge about Oregon marine reserves

Phase 1(Coast)


2 value

p value

Understand the purpose of these reserves a 56 50 3.54 .060 .06

Understand the role of science in these reserves a 44 40 1.71 .191 .04

Familiarity with these reserves b 71 35 132.93 < .001 .35

Understand the role of public involvement in these reserves a 30 25 3.86 .049 .06

Informed about these reserves c 44 23 51.83 < .001 .22

Knowledgeable about these reserves d 40 21 42.72 < .001 .20

Understand where these reserves are located a 34 17 41.55 < .001 .20

Understand rules / regulations of these reserves a 22 17 3.11 .078 .06

Understand how these reserves would be managed a 26 15 21.57 < .001 .14 a Cell entries are percentages (%) of respondents who felt they “moderately or fully understand” these issues about marine

reserves in Oregon. b Cell entries are percentages (%) of respondents who said “yes” they were familiar with the topic of marine reserves in Oregon. c Cell entries are percentages (%) of respondents who felt “moderately or extremely informed” about the topic of marine reserves

in Oregon. d Cell entries are percentages (%) of respondents who felt “moderately or extremely knowledgeable” about the topic of marine

reserves in Oregon.

Factual Knowledge about Oregon Marine Reserves. The questionnaires also contained multiple

statements about marine reserves in Oregon designed for measuring factual knowledge about

these reserves. Ten true / false (and unsure) questions about these reserves were asked: “In

Oregon: (a) the government has been considering marine reserves for the past several years

(true), (b) the government has approved marine reserves for this state (true), (c) commercial

fishing would be allowed in all marine reserves (false), (d) all marine reserves would include

coastal lands such as beaches and coastlines (false), (e) the government has established five

marine reserve sites (true), (f) new developments such as wave energy or fish farms would be

allowed in all marine reserves (false), (g) non-extractive recreation / tourism activities (e.g.,

surfing, swimming, diving) would be allowed in all marine reserves (true), (h) keeping fish

caught in marine reserves would be allowed in all reserves (false), (i) only scientists and no other

people would be allowed in all marine reserves (false), and (j) there have been opportunities for

public involvement in agency discussions about marine reserves (true).” In addition, respondents


19

were asked “what one agency or organization do you think is currently responsible for marine

reserves in Oregon” with the following choices: National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Coast Guard, Pacific Fishery Management

Council, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

(i.e., correct answer), Oregon Marine Board, and Unsure. All of these factual knowledge

questions were recoded into dichotomous “correct” and “not correct” responses. Then, a

standardized score was computed for each respondent representing the percent of correctly

answered questions out of 11 (i.e., 0 to 100% correct).

Results in Table 11 show responses to these variables measuring factual knowledge. The only

two items answered correctly by the majority of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were that

scientists would not be the only people allowed in these reserves (52%) and commercial fishing

would not be allowed in all of the reserves (50%). The question answered correctly by the fewest

of these residents was that the government has established five marine reserve sites (14%). Only

47% of these respondents correctly identified ODFW as the agency or organization currently

responsible for these marine reserves, 44% knew there have been opportunities for public

involvement in decisions about these areas, 43% knew keeping fish caught would not be allowed

in all marine reserves, and 42% knew the government has been considering marine reserves in

Oregon for several years. Less than 30% of these respondents, however, answered the other

factual knowledge questions correctly. Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents correctly answered 10

of these 11 factual knowledge questions less often compared to Phase 1 (coast) respondents, and

this difference was statistically significant for eight of these questions. For example, 71% of

Phase 1 (coast) residents and only 42% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents knew that the

government has been considering marine reserves for the past several years, and 30% of Phase 1

(coast) residents versus only 14% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents knew that the

government has established five marine reserve sites.

The total factual knowledge score out of 11 questions showed that this knowledge was low

among Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents, with an average score of only 36% of questions

answered correctly. This factual knowledge score was significantly lower compared to Phase 1

(coast) respondents (47% correct), although both of these sample populations had low factual

knowledge associated with Oregon’s marine reserve system.


20

Table 11. Factual knowledge about Oregon marine reserves Percent answered

correctly (%)

Correct Response a

Phase 1(Coast)

Phase 2 (I-5 Corridor) 2 value p value

Only scientists and no other people would be allowed in all marine reserves

False 54 52 .41 .524 .02

Commercial fishing would be allowed in all marine reserves

False 67 50 28.14 < .001 .17

What agency organization is currently responsible for marine reserves in Oregon

ODFW 34 47 16.82 < .001 .13

There have been opportunities for public involvement in agency discussions about marine reserves

True 58 44 23.41 < .001 .15

Keeping fish caught in marine reserves would be allowed in all reserves

False 58 43 19.18 < .001 .14

The government has been considering marine reserves for the past several years

True 71 42 60.08 < .001 .24

The government has approved marine reserves for this state

True 46 29 28.72 < .001 .17

All marine reserves would include coastal lands such as beaches and coastlines

False 34 29 2.65 .104 .05

New developments such as wave energy or fish farms would be allowed in all marine reserves

False 36 25 14.75 < .001 .12

Non-extractive recreation / tourism activities (e.g., surfing, swimming) would be allowed in all marine reserves

True 34 24 12.34 < .001 .11

The government has established five marine reserve sites

True 30 14 39.69 < .001 .19

Total factual knowledge score (average percent correct [%] out of 11) b

-- 47 36 6.37 < .001 .20

a All questions also included an “Unsure” response category coded as “incorrect” in the analysis. b Tests of statistical significant are t-tests with point-biserial correlation effect sizes.

Sources of Information to Learn about Oregon Marine Reserves. Respondents were asked the

extent they disagreed or agreed that: (a) it is easy to access and find information about the marine

reserves in Oregon, and (b) managers have done a good job communicating with the public about

these reserves. Table 12 shows extremely low levels of agreement with these statements among

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents, with only 17% agreeing it is easy to access and find

information about marine reserves in Oregon. There were no differences in agreement with this

statement between Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents (17%) and Phase 1 (coast) respondents

(18%). Only 7% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents agreed that managers have done a good

job communicating with the public about these marine reserves, which was significantly lower


21

agreement compared to Phase 1 (coast) respondents (13%), although both of these sample

populations had extremely low agreement with this statement.

Table 12. Beliefs about current information regarding Oregon marine reserves a

Phase 1 (Coast)

Phase 2 (I-5 Corridor) 2 value p value

It is easy to access / find information about marine reserves in Oregon

18 17 .04 .840 .01

Managers have done a good job communicating with the public about marine reserves in Oregon

13 7 10.54 < .001 .10


Residents were also asked what sources they used for obtaining information and learning about

marine reserves in Oregon. The questionnaires listed 13 potential sources with responses on 5-

point scales of 0 “never” to 4 “often.” For analysis purposes, responses were recoded to “never”

(0 on scale) and “at least once” (1 to 4 on scale). Table 13 shows that none of these sources were

used by the majority (over 50%) of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents to obtain information

about these reserves. Newspapers (49%) and television news / programs (47%) were the most

often cited sources by these respondents, whereas attending meetings or presentations (11%) and

discussing the reserves with government agency employees (12%) were the least cited sources.

More than one-third of these respondents also indicated they had discussed Oregon’s marine

reserves with friends or family (44%), listened to radio news or programs about the reserves

(40%), and read magazine articles or books about these areas (38%).

Compared to Phase 1 (coast) residents, Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were less likely to

have used 11 of these 13 sources for obtaining information about these marine reserves, and

these differences between sample populations were statistically significant for 10 of the 13

sources. For example, 80% of Phase 1 (coast) residents compared to only 49% of Phase 2 (I-5

corridor) respondents read newspaper articles about these marine reserves. The only sources used

by statistically similar proportions of Phase 1 (coast) and Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were

reading about marine reserves on general websites (30% and 31%, respectively), government

agency websites (28% and 23%, respectively), and social media websites such as Facebook and

Twitter (20% and 22%, respectively).


22

Table 13. Sources of information to learn about Oregon marine reserves a

Phase 1 (Coast)


2 value

p value

Read newspaper articles about marine reserves in Oregon

80 49 108.65 < .001 .32

Watched television news / programs about marine reserves in Oregon

65 47 36.36 < .001 .19

Discussed marine reserves in Oregon with friends or family members

68 44 58.03 < .001 .24

Listened to radio news / programs about marine reserves in Oregon

63 40 53.33 < .001 .23

Read magazine articles or books about marine reserves in Oregon

64 38 70.99 < .001 .26

Read about marine reserves in Oregon on any other websites

30 31 .23 .629 .02

Read about marine reserves in Oregon fishing regulations brochures

48 30 36.27 < .001 .19

Learned about marine reserves in Oregon from environmental or community groups

45 28 29.10 < .001 .17

Learned about marine reserves in Oregon from work or school

33 27 4.53 .033 .07

Read about marine reserves in Oregon on government agency websites

28 23 3.24 .072 .06

Read about marine reserves in Oregon on social websites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter)

20 22 .48 .490 .02

Discussed marine reserves in Oregon with government agency employees

25 12 32.20 < .001 .17

Attended meetings or presentations about marine reserves in Oregon

29 11 51.38 < .001 .22

a Cell entries are percentages (%) of respondents who have used the information source at least once to learn about these reserves.

The questionnaires then asked respondents to specify the one primary source from which they

would most prefer to obtain information about marine reserves in Oregon. Results in Table 14

show that the greatest proportions of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents would prefer to receive

information about these reserves from newspaper articles (21%) or television news and related

programs (20%). The least preferred sources of information included friends or family (1%),

government agency employees (1%), and work or school (3%). Phase 2 (I-5 corridor)

respondents were significantly more likely than those on the coast (Phase 1) to prefer radio news

and programs (14% vs. 5%) and social media websites (8% vs. 1%). Phase 1 (coast) residents

were more likely than Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents to prefer to obtain information from

meetings or presentations (12% vs. 4%).


23

Table 14. Preferred source of information about Oregon marine reserves a


Newspaper articles 26 21

Television news / programs 25 20

Radio news / programs 5 14

Government agency websites 7 8

Social websites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) 1 8

Magazine articles or books 7 6

Fishing regulations brochures 6 6

Other websites 4 6

Meetings or presentations 12 4

Environmental or community groups 3 4

Work or school 1 3

Government agency employees 2 1

Friends or family members 1 1 a Cell entries are percentages (%) of all respondents who indicated this would be their preferred source of information about

Oregon’s marine reserves. 2(12, N = 797) = 64.85, p < .001, V = .28.

Beliefs about Oregon Marine Reserves. The questionnaires contained several questions

measuring beliefs about marine reserves and protection in Oregon. Respondents were asked their

opinion regarding the protection versus human utilization (i.e., use) of marine areas in this state.

Table 15 shows 82% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents believed in protecting Oregon’s

marine areas with little or no human utilization, whereas 19% believed in utilizing these marine

areas with little or no protection. Most (70%) of these respondents believed marine areas should

mostly be protected with just a little utilization, whereas only 18% believed these areas should be

mostly utilized with just a little protection and even fewer believed Oregon’s marine areas should

be either fully protected with no utilization (12%) or fully utilized with no protection (1%).

Coastal residents (Phase 1, 37%) were more likely than Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents (18%)

to believe that marine areas should be mostly utilized with just a little protection, whereas Phase

2 (I-5 corridor) respondents (70%) were more likely than coastal residents (Phase 1, 48%) to

believe marine areas should mostly be protected with just a little utilization.

Table 15. Opinions about protection versus utilization of Oregon marine areas a


Should fully protect marine areas with almost no utilization 12 12

Should mostly protect marine areas with just a little utilization 48 70

Should mostly utilize marine areas with just a little protection 37 18

Should fully utilize marine areas with almost no protection 3 1 a Cell entries are percentages (%). 2(3, N = 996) = 59.58, p < .001, V = .24.


24

Respondents were also asked the extent that they disagreed or agreed with four statements about

activities that should be allowed in marine reserves in Oregon. Results in Table 16 show that

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents overwhelmingly agreed (89%) that scientific research should

be allowed in these marine reserves. In addition, 52% of these respondents agreed that non-

extractive recreation and tourism activities should also be allowed (e.g., surf, swim). Only 27%

of these respondents, however, agreed that recreational fishing should be allowed, and the fewest

thought that commercial fishing should be allowed (8%). Compared to these Phase 2 (I-5

corridor) respondents, however, Phase 1 (coast) residents were significantly more likely to agree

that recreation and tourism activities (59% vs. 52%), recreational fishing (39% vs. 27%), and

commercial fishing (22% vs. 8%) should be allowed in these marine reserves.

Table 16. Beliefs about what should be allowed in Oregon marine reserves a


Scientific research should be allowed in marine reserves in Oregon

88 89 .01 .986 .01

Non-extractive recreation / tourism activities (e.g., surfing, swimming) should be allowed in marine reserves in Oregon

59 52 5.15 .023 .07

Recreational fishing should be allowed in marine reserves in Oregon

39 27 15.60 < .001 .12

Commercial fishing should be allowed in marine reserves in Oregon

22 8 40.16 < .001 .19


In addition, the questionnaire asked respondents the extent they believed several groups could

either be harmed by or benefit from the marine reserves in Oregon (e.g., recreationists, anglers,

local businesses, government agencies). Table 17 shows resident opinions about groups that

could benefit from these reserves, whereas Table 18 shows resident opinions about groups that

could be harmed by these reserves. Results in Table 17 show the only groups the majority of

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents believed could benefit from these reserves are scientists /

researchers (90%), people who live along the Oregon coast (58%), and government agencies

(57%). Fewer than the majority of these respondents believed that people recreating in marine

areas (38%), local businesses (38%), people who do not live on the coast (36%), and people who

fish recreationally (23%) or commercially (14%) would benefit. There were significant

differences between Phase 1 (coast) residents and Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents regarding

perceived benefits to most of these groups, with Phase 2 respondents indicating higher perceived

benefits to scientists / researchers, people who live on the coast, government agencies, people

recreating in marine areas, local businesses, and people who do not live on the coast.


25

Table 17. Beliefs that groups could benefit from the Oregon marine reserves a


Scientists / researchers 86 90 3.88 .049 .06

People who live along the Oregon coast 43 58 23.37 < .001 .15

Government agencies 49 57 6.44 .011 .08


Local businesses 26 38 17.33 < .001 .13

People who do not live along Oregon coast 26 36 13.11 < .001 .12


People who fish commercially 16 14 1.02 .313 .03 a Cell entries are percentages (%) of respondents who said group could “slightly or strongly benefit” from the reserves.

Conversely, Table 18 shows the only groups that the majority of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor)

respondents believed would be harmed by these reserves are people who fish commercially

(77%) or recreationally (57%). Less than the majority of these respondents believed that people

who recreate in marine areas (36%), local businesses (27%), and people who live along the

Oregon coast (18%) would be harmed by these reserves. These residents believed the groups

least likely to be harmed include scientists or researchers (2%), government agencies (7%), and

people who do not live along the Oregon coast (9%). Compared to these Phase 2 (I-5 corridor)

respondents, however, those living along the coast (Phase 1) were significantly more likely to

believe that people who recreate in marine areas, local businesses, and people who live along the

coast could be harmed by these reserves.

Table 18. Beliefs that groups could be harmed by the Oregon marine reserves a


People who fish commercially 75 77 .37 .544 .02



Local businesses 42 27 24.19 < .001 .15

People who live along the Oregon coast 32 18 25.67 < .001 .16

People who do not live along Oregon coast 12 9 1.84 .175 .04

Government agencies 10 7 3.42 .064 .06

Scientists / researchers 4 2 3.32 .068 .06 a Cell entries are percentages (%) of respondents who said group could be “slightly or strongly harmed” by the reserves.

Attitudes toward Oregon Marine Reserves. The questionnaires contained four pairs of words,

each on 5-point semantic differential scales (e.g., dislike – like, negative – positive), for

measuring attitudes toward marine reserves in general (i.e., not specific to Oregon). Table 19

shows that most Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents held positive attitudes toward marine reserves


26

in general (average attitude = 4.34 / 5.00). These residents believed that marine reserves are

beneficial (84%), thought these areas are generally good (84%), believed that marine reserves are

positive (84%), and liked the idea of marine reserves (79%). For all of these measures, residents

living along the I-5 corridor (Phase 2) were significantly more likely than those along the coast

(Phase 1) to report positive attitudes toward marine reserves in general. For example, 84% of

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents thought marine reserves are positive, whereas only 64% of

Phase 1 (coast) residents believed that marine reserves are positive.

Table 19. Attitudes toward marine reserves in general a

Phase 1 (Coast) Phase 2 (I-5 Corridor) 2 or t p value or rpb

Marine reserves in general are beneficial 67 84 37.74 < .001 .19

Marine reserves in general are good 65 84 47.25 < .001 .22

Marine reserves in general are positive 64 84 51.35 < .001 .22

I like the idea of marine reserves in general 65 79 26.71 < .001 .16

Average (mean) attitude b 3.80 4.34 8.18 < .001 .25 a Items were asked on 5-point semantic differential scales (e.g., 1 “dislike” to 5 “like;” 1 “harmful” to 5 “beneficial”). Cell entries are percentages (%) that selected 4 or 5 (i.e., positive attitude) for each pair unless specified as averages (means). b Represents the overall average (mean) on 5-point scale for all 4 items combined where 1 represents the most negative attitude

and 5 represents the most positive attitude. Cronbach alpha reliability = .97 (coast), .96 (I-5 corridor).

These same four scales were used for measuring specific attitudes toward establishing marine

reserves in Oregon. Table 20 shows similar findings where Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents

expressed positive attitudes toward establishing marine reserves in Oregon (average attitude =

4.31 / 5.00). These residents believed that marine reserves in Oregon are beneficial (82%) and

positive (81%), thought these areas are good (81%), and liked the idea of these reserves (79%).

For all of these measures, residents of the I-5 corridor (Phase 2) were significantly more likely

than those on the coast (Phase 1) to have positive attitudes toward establishing marine reserves in

Oregon. For example, 81% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents thought establishing these

reserves is good, whereas only 60% of Phase 1 (coast) residents believed establishment is good.

Table 20. Attitudes toward establishing marine reserves in Oregon a

Phase 1 (Coast) Phase 2 (I-5 Corridor) 2 or t p value or rpb

Marine reserves in Oregon are beneficial 66 82 34.94 < .001 .19

Marine reserves in Oregon are positive 62 81 43.66 < .001 .21

Marine reserves in Oregon are good 60 81 53.25 < .001 .23

I like the idea of marine reserves in Oregon 61 79 36.87 < .001 .19

Average (mean) attitude b 3.70 4.31 8.24 < .001 .25 a Items were asked on 5-point semantic differential scales (e.g., 1 “dislike” to 5 “like;” 1 “harmful” to 5 “beneficial”). Cell entries are percentages (%) that selected 4 or 5 (i.e., positive attitude) for each pair unless specified as averages (means). b Represents the overall average (mean) on 5-point scale for all 4 items combined where 1 represents the most negative attitude

and 5 represents the most positive attitude. Cronbach alpha reliability = .98 (coast), .97 (I-5 corridor).


27

A second approach for measuring attitudes toward marine reserves in Oregon was context-

specific and addressed both affective (i.e., emotional) evaluations and belief questions about 11

possible advantages and seven possible disadvantages associated with outcomes of these

reserves. To measure beliefs associated with advantages, respondents were asked the extent they

disagreed or agreed that marine reserves in Oregon would: (a) “benefit marine areas in general,”

(b) “protect the diversity of marine species,” (c) “increase marine species populations,” (d)

“allow depleted marine species populations to recover,” (e) “improve the economy,” (f)

“increase tourism,” (g) “benefit people in local communities,” (h) “improve scientific

understanding of marine areas,” (i) “allow scientists to monitor marine areas over time,” (j)

“improve our understanding of marine areas,” and (k) “improve the ability to manage marine

areas.” To measure beliefs associated with possible disadvantages associated with these reserves,

respondents were asked the extent they disagreed or agreed that marine reserves in Oregon

would: (a) “not be effective in conserving marine areas,” (b) “cause some species to become

overpopulated,” (c) “prevent people from using the reserve areas,” (d) “reduce recreational

fishing,” (e) “reduce commercial fishing,” (f) “be difficult to enforce,” and (g) “cost a lot to

manage.” Responses were measured on 5-point scales of 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly

agree,” which were then recoded to “disagree” and “agree” for analysis purposes.

Table 21. Attitudes toward potential advantages of Oregon marine reserves a

Marine reserves in Oregon would: Phase 1 (Coast) Phase 2 (I-5 Corridor) 2 value p value

Allow scientists to monitor marine areas 80 91 21.98 < .001 .14

Allow depleted populations to recover 76 86 17.96 < .001 .13

Improve our understanding of marine areas 76 85 12.78 < .001 .11

Improve scientific understanding of marine areas 74 85 18.02 < .001 .13

Protect the diversity of marine species 73 85 22.87 < .001 .15

Benefit marine areas in general 71 85 27.28 < .001 .16

Increase marine species populations 71 80 9.86 .002 .10

Improve the ability to manage marine areas 57 67 10.32 .001 .10

Increase tourism 39 54 22.48 < .001 .15

Benefit people in local communities 44 49 1.58 .209 .04

Improve the economy 30 27 .87 .352 .03 a Cell entries are percentages (%) of respondents who “agreed” with the statement.

Results in Table 21 present respondent beliefs toward potential advantages of these marine

reserves, and show strong agreement among Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents that marine

reserves in Oregon would allow scientists to monitor these areas (91%), allow depleted

populations to recover (86%), improve our understanding of marine areas (85%), improve


28

scientific understanding of marine areas (85%), protect the diversity of marine species (85%),

benefit marine areas in general (85%), and increase species populations (80%). These residents

were least likely to agree that these marine reserves would improve the economy (27%), benefit

local communities (49%), and increase tourism (54%). Compared to residents living on the coast

(Phase 1), those along the I-5 corridor (Phase 2) were more likely to agree with almost all of

these potential benefits of marine reserves in Oregon, and this pattern was statistically significant

for nine of the 11 variables. For example, 85% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents agreed that

establishing marine reserves in Oregon would benefit marine areas in general, whereas

significantly fewer (71%) Phase 1 (coast) residents agreed with this statement.

Table 22. Affective evaluations of potential advantages of Oregon marine reserves a


Allowing depleted populations to recover 89 96 18.73 < .001 .13

Protecting the diversity of marine species 85 94 24.88 < .001 .15

Improving our understanding of marine areas 85 94 22.02 < .001 .14

Improving scientific understanding of marine areas 84 93 23.47 < .001 .15

Allowing scientists to monitor marine areas 82 92 21.39 < .001 .14

Benefitting marine areas in general 81 92 24.72 < .001 .15

Benefitting people in local communities 84 90 9.18 .002 .09

Improving the ability to manage marine areas 73 84 18.46 < .001 .13

Improving the economy 83 83 .05 .831 .01

Increasing marine species populations 82 82 .04 .848 .01

Increasing tourism 75 72 .99 .321 .03 a Cell entries are percentages (%) of respondents who evaluated the potential advantage as “good.”

To measure affective evaluations, respondents were then asked if they felt each of these possible

advantages associated with marine reserves in Oregon would be good or bad on 5-point scales of

1 “very bad” to 5 “very good.” For analysis purposes, the scales were recoded into dichotomous

“bad” and “good” responses. Results in Table 22 present the extent that respondents believed

that potential advantages of these marine reserves are good, and show Phase 2 (I-5 corridor)

respondents overwhelmingly felt that these advantages would be good with positive evaluations

ranging from a of low of 72% for “increasing tourism” to a high of 96% for “allowing depleted

populations to recover.” Compared to Phase 1 (coast) residents, Phase 2 (I-5 corridor)

respondents were significantly more likely to consider almost all of these advantages to be

positive (i.e., good). For example, 94% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents versus 85% of

Phase 1 (coast) residents evaluated protecting the diversity of marine species as good.

Evaluations associated with improving the economy, increasing marine species populations, and


29

increasing tourism, however, were statistically similar between Phase 1 (coast) and Phase 2 (I-5

corridor) respondents.

Results in Table 23 present respondent beliefs toward potential disadvantages of these marine

reserves and show that 59% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents agreed the reserves would

reduce commercial fishing and 50% agreed they would reduce recreational fishing. More than

40% also agreed the reserves would be difficult to enforce (49%), cost a lot to manage (46%),

and prevent people from using these areas (44%). These residents were least likely to agree that

the marine reserves would not be effective in conserving marine areas (7%) and may cause some

species to become overpopulated (31%). There were only a few statistical differences in these

perceptions of disadvantages between these respondents living along the I-5 corridor (Phase 2)

compared to those on the coast (Phase 1) with those on the coast significantly more likely to

agree that these marine reserves would cost a lot to manage, prevent people from using the areas,

and not be effective in conserving marine areas.

Table 23. Attitudes toward potential disadvantages of Oregon marine reserves a

Marine reserves in Oregon would: Phase 1 (Coast) Phase 2 (I-5 Corridor) 2 value p value

Reduce commercial fishing 60 59 .05 .832 .01

Reduce recreational fishing 52 50 .11 .744 .01

Be difficult to enforce 53 49 1.66 .197 .04

Cost a lot to manage 55 46 8.13 .004 .09

Prevent people from using the reserve areas 52 44 6.45 .011 .08

Cause some species to become overpopulated 32 31 .05 .819 .01

Not be effective in conserving marine areas 17 7 25.50 < .001 .16 a Cell entries are percentages (%) of respondents who “agreed” with the statement.

Results in Table 24 present the extent that respondents believed these potential disadvantages of

the marine reserves are bad. In total, 83% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents indicated that the

reserves not being effective in conserving marine areas would be bad. Another 67% of these

respondents considered that it would be bad if these reserves caused some species to become

overpopulated, and 66% believed that costly management of the reserves would be bad. More

than half (59%) of these respondents indicated that it would be bad if these reserves were

difficult to enforce. There were significant differences between these Phase 2 (I-5 corridor)

respondents and Phase 1 (coast) residents, with those along the coast more likely to evaluate

costly management, reduced recreational and commercial fishing, and prevention of people from

using the reserves as bad. Conversely, Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were more likely to

indicate that the reserves not being effective in conserving marine areas would be bad.


30

Table 24. Affective evaluations of potential disadvantages of Oregon marine reserves a


Not being effective in conserving marine areas 69 83 29.63 < .001 .17

Causing some species to become overpopulated 62 67 2.98 .084 .05

Costing a lot to manage 72 66 4.16 .041 .06

Being difficult to enforce 58 59 .06 .811 .01

Reducing recreational fishing 62 40 51.18 < .001 .22

Preventing people from using the reserve areas 49 38 11.54 .001 .11

Reducing commercial fishing 52 29 53.73 < .001 .23 a Cell entries are percentages (%) of respondents who evaluated the potential disadvantages as “bad.”

Behavioral Intentions in Response to Oregon Marine Reserves. The questionnaire contained a

number of questions measuring behavioral intentions associated with these marine reserves.

Respondents were asked, “if you were to be given an opportunity to vote for or against

establishing marine reserves in Oregon, how would you vote,” followed with a question asking

how certain they would vote this way. Table 25 shows 90% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents

would vote in support of marine reserves in Oregon. This indicates overwhelming majority

support for marine reserves in Oregon. Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents (90%) would be

significantly more likely than Phase 1 (coast) residents (69%) to vote in favor of these reserves.

Table 25. Intended voting behavior associated with Oregon marine reserves a

I would vote… Phase 1 (Coast) Phase 2 (I-5 Corridor)

… for establishing marine reserves in Oregon 69 90

… against establishing marine reserves in Oregon 31 10

a Cell entries are percentages (%). 2(1, N = 1020) = 70.76, p < .001, = .26.

Almost all Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were also extremely (49%) or moderately certain

(40%) in these voting intentions (Table 26). There were no differences in this certainty between

Phase 1 (coast) residents and Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents.

Table 26. Certainty of intended voting behavior associated with Oregon marine reserves a


Extremely certain 47 49

Moderately certain 41 40

Slightly certain 8 7

Not certain 4 3 a Cell entries are percentages (%). 2(3, N = 1028) = .57, p = .904, V = .02.


31

In addition, respondents also indicated the extent they disagreed or agreed with three related

statements: (a) “I intend to support having marine reserves in Oregon,” (b) “I am against

establishing marine reserves in Oregon,” and (c) “I would likely be in favor of implementing

marine reserves in Oregon.” Results in Table 27 show that the majority of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor)

respondents agreed they would be in favor of implementing marine reserves in Oregon (76%),

and they intended to support having these reserves (75%). Only 5% of these respondents agreed

they were against establishing marine reserves in Oregon. There were significant differences

between these Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents and Phase 1 (coast) residents, with Phase 2 (I-5

corridor) respondents indicating higher favor (76% vs. 61%) and support (75% vs. 57%) of these

marine reserves, whereas Phase 1 (coast) residents were slightly more likely to agree that they

were against establishing these reserves (19% vs. 5%).

Table 27. Behavioral intentions associated with Oregon marine reserves a


I would likely be in favor of implementing marine reserves in Oregon

61 76 28.98 < .001 .17

I intend to support having marine reserves in Oregon

57 75 38.88 < .001 .19

I am against establishing marine reserves in Oregon

19 5 47.21 < .001 .21


Residents were also asked how they would change their behavior if one or more of these five

marine sites was designated as a reserve. Table 28 shows the largest percentage of Phase 2 (I-5

corridor) respondents (67%) would likely still visit these marine sites the same amount, whereas

23% would likely visit these sites more often. Only 10% of these respondents reported they

would visit less often. There was one significant difference between these Phase 2 (I-5 corridor)

respondents and Phase 1 (coast) residents, with those living along the I-5 corridor (Phase 2)

indicating higher likelihood of visiting the same amount (67% vs. 45%). There were no

differences between these two sample populations in the proportions visiting more or less often.

Table 28. Potential changes in behavior in response to Oregon marine reserves a

I would visit the marine sites(s)… Phase 1 (Coast) Phase 2 (I-5 Corridor) 2 value p value

… the same amount 45 67 48.51 < .001 .22

… more often 22 23 .07 .795 .01

… less often 13 10 1.61 .204 .04 a Cell entries are percentages (%) of respondents who said they would engage in the action.


32

Trust in ODFW to Manage Oregon Marine Reserves. Residents were asked the extent they

disagreed or agreed with nine statements measuring their level of social trust in Oregon

Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) to address and manage marine reserves in Oregon

(e.g., trust to provide the best available information about these marine reserves, trust to make

good decisions regarding management of these marine reserves). Results in Table 29 show that

69% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents agreed they trusted ODFW to provide truthful

information about these marine reserves, 67% trusted this agency to manage these reserves using

the best available information about non-human species, and 65% trusted ODFW to manage

these reserves using the best available information about human uses of these areas. The lowest

proportion of these respondents trusted ODFW to use public input to inform management of

marine reserves (51%). Responses to only two of these nine statements statistically differed

between these Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents and Phase 1 (coast) residents, with Phase 2 (I-5

corridor) respondents more likely to agree they trusted ODFW to manage marine reserves using

the best available information about human uses of these areas (65% vs. 57%), and make good

decisions regarding management of marine reserves (64% vs. 54%).

Table 29. Trust in ODFW to manage Oregon marine reserves a

I trust ODFW to: Phase 1 (Coast) Phase 2 (I-5 Corridor) 2 value p value

Provide truthful information about marine reserves 64 69 2.71 .100 .05

Manage marine reserves using the best available information about non-human species in these areas (e.g., fish, birds)

63 67 1.68 .195 .04

Manage marine reserves using the best available information about human uses of these areas

57 65 6.84 .009 .08

Make good decisions regarding management of marine reserves

54 64 10.32 .001 .10

Provide the best available information about marine reserves

62 62 .58 .809 .01

Work with other organizations to inform management of marine reserves

54 60 3.67 .055 .06

Provide me with enough information to decide what actions I should take regarding marine reserves

54 60 2.40 .122 .05

Provide timely information about marine reserves 55 56 .26 .607 .02

Use public input to inform management of marine reserves

49 51 .25 .618 .02


Assigned Values for Oregon Marine Reserves. The questionnaire for Phase 2 (I-5 corridor)

asked residents to evaluate the importance of 23 assigned values associated with Oregon’s

marine reserves. Responses were on 9-point scales of 0 “not important” to 8 “extremely


33

important.” These questions were not asked in the Phase 1 (coastal residents) questionnaire.

Figure 2 shows the most important values for Oregon’s marine reserves were “protect habitat for

marine species” (94% important [73% extremely]), “protect endangered species” (93% important

[74% extremely]), “preserve unique wild plants or animals” (93% important [71% extremely]),

“protect water quality” (92% important [74% extremely]), “preserve natural areas for scientific

discovery or study” (92% important [63% extremely]), “protect endangered places” (92%

important [67% extremely]), and “protect marine species, water, or plants that have value even if

humans do not benefit from them” (91% important [67% extremely]). The least important

assigned values were “provide spiritual inspiration” (45% important [14% extremely]), “provide

income for the tourism industry” (66% important [20% extremely]), “provide opportunities to

maintain or regain physical or mental health through contact with nature” (72% important [28%

extremely]), and “provide recreation opportunities” (72% important [24% extremely]).

Figure 2. Assigned values for Oregon marine reserves

21

19

22

18

29

25

24

38

26

29

25

44

35

29

42

42

44

36

44

48

44

46

31

73

74

71

74

63

67

67

51

62

58

62

42

51

56

42

42

38

40

31

24

28

20

14

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Protect habitat for marine species

Protect endangered species

Preserve unique wild plants or animals

Protect water quality

Preserve natural areas for scientific discovery or study

Protect endangered places

Protect marine species, water, or plants that have value even if humans do not benefit from them

Protect other natural resources that humans may have to use in the future

Knowing that future generations will have marine reserves

Foster a moral or ethical obligation to respect or protect nature or other living things

Protect air quality

Protect species to be used by the fishing industry in the future

Provide scenic beauty

Protect nature to ensure human well-being or survival

Provide a place of minimal human impact or intrusion into the natural environment

Knowing that I will have the ability to visit marine reserves in the future

Protect places that provide a sense of place, community, or belonging

Protect symbols of America’s heritage or culture

Just knowing that marine reserves exist

Provide recreation opportunities

Provide opportunities to maintain or regain physical or mental health through contact with nature

Provide income for the tourism industry

Provide spiritual inspiration

Percent (%)

Moderately important Extremely important


34

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were then asked to prioritize up to three of these assigned

values that they believed were the most important for Oregon’s marine reserves to provide.

Figure 3 shows that according to Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents, the most important assigned

values for Oregon’s marine reserves to provide were “protect marine species, water, or plants

that have value even if humans do not benefit from them” (29%), “protect habitat for marine

species” (28%), “protect endangered species” (27%), and “protect water quality” (27%). Least

important were “provide spiritual inspiration” (2%), “just knowing that marine reserves exist”

(2%), and “protect symbols of America’s heritage or culture” (2%).

Figure 3. Most important assigned values for Oregon marine reserves to provide (percentages sum to more than 100% because respondents could select up to three choices).

Perceptions of Oregon’s Marine Reserves as “Marine Wilderness.” The questionnaire for

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) also asked residents a number of questions measuring their perceptions of

Oregon’s marine reserves if they were ever to be designated or called “wilderness” (i.e., “marine

wilderness”). These questions were not asked in the Phase 1 (coastal residents) questionnaire.

29

28

27

27

20

19

18

16

14

12

12

12

12

11

10

8

7

5

4

4

2

2

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Protect marine species, water, or plants that have value even if humans do not benefit from them

Protect habitat for marine species

Protect endangered species

Protect water quality

Foster a moral or ethical obligation to respect or protect nature or other living things

Preserve natural areas for scientific discovery or study

Protect endangered places

Provide a place of minimal human impact or intrusion into the natural environment

Preserve unique wild plants or animals

Knowing that future generations will have marine reserves

Protect air quality

Protect species to be used by the fishing industry in the future

Protect nature to ensure human well-being or survival

Provide recreation opportunities

Protect other natural resources that humans may have to use in the future

Provide scenic beauty

Provide opportunities to maintain or regain physical or mental health through contact with nature

Provide income for the tourism industry

Knowing that I will have the ability to visit marine reserves in the future

Protect places that provide a sense of place, community, or belonging

Protect symbols of America’s heritage or culture

Just knowing that marine reserves exist

Provide spiritual inspiration

Percent (%)


35

Text in the Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) questionnaire first informed respondents that: “Although

Oregon’s marine reserves are not officially designated as wilderness, some people believe

wilderness exists on not only land, but also in the ocean. However, other people believe

wilderness only exists on land and does not include the ocean. Wilderness has many possible

definitions, but for the purposes of the rest of this survey, it can generally be considered as places

where natural processes dominate and intentional human modification of the environment is

minimal.” Respondents were then asked several questions. Respondents were asked, for

example, the extent they agreed or disagreed that “there are areas of the ocean in the world that

could be called wilderness,” “there are areas of the ocean along Oregon’s coast that could be

called wilderness,” and “Oregon’s marine reserves could be called wilderness.” Figure 4 shows

that 80% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents believed there are areas of the ocean in the world

that could be called wilderness, and 72% thought there are areas of the ocean along Oregon’s

coast that could be called wilderness. Although still a majority, fewer of these respondents (60%)

believed that Oregon’s marine reserves could be called wilderness.

Figure 4. Applicability of wilderness to marine areas

Figure 5. Beliefs about whether Oregon’s marine reserves should be designated as wilderness

These respondents were also asked whether they thought Oregon’s marine reserves actually

should or should not be designated as wilderness. Figure 5 shows that 41% of Phase 2 (I-5

80

72

60

14

18

25

6

10

15

0% 25% 50% 75% 100%

There are areas of the ocean in the world that could be called wilderness

There are areas of the ocean along Oregon’s coast that could be called wilderness

Oregon’s marine reserves could be called wilderness

Agree Neither Disagree

41

43

16

0 10 20 30 40 50

Oregon's marine reserves should be designated as wilderness

Neutral

Oregon's marine reserves should not be designated as wilderness

Percent (%)


36

corridor) respondents believed that Oregon’s marine reserves should be designated as wilderness

and only 16% believed these areas should not be designated as wilderness. The largest

proportion of these respondents (43%), however, was noncommittal and had a neutral opinion.

Respondents were also asked two questions measuring how their attitudes would change if

Oregon’s marine reserves were designated as wilderness. Figure 6 shows that the majority of

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents (61%) would not change their opinion of Oregon’s marine

reserves if they were ever to be designated as wilderness, whereas 28% would have a more

positive opinion about these areas and 11% would have a more negative opinion. Similarly,

Figure 7 shows that 28% of these respondents would like Oregon’s marine reserves more if they

were ever to be designated as wilderness, only 10% would like these areas less, and the majority

(63%) would not change their opinion.

Figure 6. Change in positive or negative opinions if Oregon’s marine reserves were designated as wilderness

Figure 7. Change in extent that Oregon’s marine reserves would be liked or disliked if designated as wilderness

Finally, respondents were asked if they would want to visit any of the five currently designated

marine reserves in Oregon (Figure 1) less often, the same amount, or more often if one or more

of these reserves were ever to be designated as wilderness. Figure 8 shows that the majority of

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents (64%) would want to visit Oregon’s marine reserves the same

amount as they do now if these areas were ever to be designated as wilderness, whereas 21%

would want to visit these areas more often and 15% would visit less often.

61

28

11

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

My opinion would not change

My opinion of Oregon's marine reserves would be more positive if they weredesignated as wilderness

My opinion of Oregon's marine reserves would be more negative if they weredesignated as wilderness

Percent (%)

63

28

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70


I would like Oregon's marine reserves more if they were designated aswilderness

I would like Oregon's marine reserves less if they were designated as wilderness

Percent (%)


37

Figure 8. Change in visitation if Oregon’s marine reserves were designated as wilderness

Perceptions of Marine Areas and the Environment

Environmental Value Orientations. The public is heterogeneous and often exhibits different

preferences, attitudes, and behaviors in relation to natural resource issues such as marine

reserves. To understand various subgroups of the public, individuals have been grouped

according to their value orientations toward general objects such as natural resources (Bright,

Manfredo, & Fulton, 2000; Vaske & Needham, 2007). As stated earlier in this report, value

orientations refer to general classes of objects and are revealed through the pattern, direction, and

intensity of basic beliefs (Fulton et al., 1996; Vaske & Donnelly, 1999). In most studies, these

basic beliefs have reliably and consistently factored into value orientation continuums such as

the biocentric – anthropocentric continuum for broader environmental value orientations (Steel,

List, & Shindler, 1994; Vaske & Donnelly, 1999), and the protection – use continuum for value

orientations related to more specific objects such as forests, wildlife, and coral reefs (Bright et

al., 2000; Fulton et al., 1996; Needham, 2010; Vaske & Needham, 2007). Users arranged along

these value orientation continuums can then be grouped into more meaningful homogeneous

subgroups (Bright et al., 2000; Vaske & Needham, 2007). These value orientations are important

because they can be useful for predicting higher order cognitions such as attitudes, behavioral

intentions, and actual behaviors associated with natural resources (Fulton et al., 1996; Vaske &

Donnelly, 1999). Individuals with more biocentric or protectionist orientations, for example, may

be less inclined to engage in consumptive behaviors such as fishing or hunting, and they may be

more likely to support policies such as species reintroduction or habitat protection.

Broad environmental value orientations of residents were measured using eight variables from

the popular New Environmental Paradigm Scale (NEP, Dunlap & Van Liere, 1978) and its more

recent version, the Revised New Ecological Paradigm Scale (Dunlap et al., 2000). These

variables are shown in Table 30. On average, Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents agreed with the

four biocentric variables and disagreed with the four anthropocentric variables. For example,

64

21

15

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

I would want to visit the same amount

I would want to visit more often

I would want to visit less often

Percent (%)


38

these residents agreed most strongly with the belief statement that “humans are severely abusing

the environment” (78% agreed) and disagreed most strongly with the statement that “the so-

called ecological crisis facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated” (only 12% agreed).

Reliability of variables measuring these dimensions was examined using Cronbach’s alpha

reliability coefficients (α), which range from 0 (no reliability) to 1 (perfect reliability). An alpha

coefficient of ≥ .65 is considered by most researchers to be acceptable and indicates that multiple

variables are measuring the same broad concept or dimension, and justifies combining these

individual variables into broad composite indices representing the dimensions (Cortina, 1993;

Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994; Vaske, 2008). The alpha reliability coefficients for Phase 2 (I-5

corridor) respondents were .78 for the anthropocentric orientation and .77 for the biocentric

orientation, suggesting that variables for each reliably measured their respective orientation.

Deletion of any variable from its respective orientation did not improve reliability.

Table 30. Reliability analyses of NEP items measuring environmental value orientations a Orientations and variables

Mean b

Percent Agree (%)

Item total correlation

Alpha (α) if

deleted

Cronbachalpha (α)

Anthropocentric orientation .79, .78

The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them

-.10, -.20 40, 35 .51, .49 .78, .78

Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs

-.70, -.56 18, 21 .60, .54 .73, .75

Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature -.83, -.97 17, 16 .64, .69 .71, .67

The so-called ecological crisis facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated

-.67, -.99 20, 12 .63, .64 .71, .70

Biocentric orientation .83, .77

Humans are severely abusing the environment .74, 1.03 67, 78 .69, .67 .76, .66

The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset .93, .96 75, 76 .60, .52 .80, .74

When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences

.81, .81 69, 68 .72, .61 .75, .70

Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist .56, .78 60, 66 .62, .51 .79, .76 a First numbers listed = Phase 1 (coast), second numbers listed = Phase 2 (I-5 corridor). b Variables measured on 5-point recoded scales of -2 strongly disagree to +2 strongly agree.

K-means cluster analysis was then performed on these variables to group respondents. Cluster

analysis classifies individuals into groups based on statistical patterns of responses across

multiple variables or factors (Hair & Black, 2000). A series of two to six group cluster analyses

showed that a four group solution provided the best fit for the data. To validate this solution, the

data were randomly sorted and a cluster analysis was conducted after each of five random sorts.

These analyses supported the solution identifying four distinct clusters of residents, labeled:


39

Strong biocentric orientation

Moderate biocentric orientation

Mixed anthropocentric – biocentric orientation

Anthropocentric orientation

These groups were compared in terms of their responses to the original value orientation belief

statements. Residents with an anthropocentric orientation agreed with all anthropocentric

statements and disagreed with all biocentric variables. Those with a mixed anthropocentric –

biocentric orientation mostly had neutral mean or average responses (i.e., midpoint on scales) for

all variables. Residents with a moderate biocentric orientation slightly agreed with all biocentric

variables and slightly disagreed with all anthropocentric variables. Residents with a strong

biocentric orientation strongly agreed with all biocentric variables and strongly disagreed with all

anthropocentric variables. In total, the largest proportion of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents

had a strong biocentric (i.e., nature oriented) environmental value orientation (38%) and the

smallest proportion had an anthropocentric orientation (i.e., human oriented, 8%). In addition,

26% of these respondents had a moderate biocentric orientation and 29% had a mixed

anthropocentric – biocentric orientation. Table 31 shows that Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents

(38%) were slightly more likely than Phase 1 (coast) residents (34%) to have a strong biocentric

orientation. Conversely, Phase 1 residents on the coast (12%) were slightly more likely than

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents (8%) to have an anthropocentric orientation. These

differences, however, were not statistically significant.

Table 31. Environmental value orientations a


Strong biocentric orientation 34 38

Moderate biocentric orientation 25 26

Mixed anthropocentric – biocentric orientation 29 29

Anthropocentric orientation 12 8 a Cell entries are percentages (%). 2(3, N = 975) = 7.12, p = .068, V = .09.

Value Orientations toward Marine Areas. Research has also measured value orientations

toward more specific objects such as forests, wildlife, and coral reefs, as opposed to broader

environmental value orientations. This is especially important in the context of marine areas,

which are the focus of this project. An individual’s specific value orientation toward marine

areas, therefore, was constructed from four variables designed to measure protectionist basic


40

beliefs toward marine areas and four variables measuring use related beliefs about marine areas.

These variables are shown in Table 32. On average, Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents disagreed

with all of the use related variables and agreed with most of the protectionist statements. For

example, these residents agreed most strongly with the belief statement that “marine areas have

value whether humans are present or not” (91% agreed) and disagreed most strongly with the

statements that “marine areas exist primarily to be used by humans” and “the economic values

that marine areas provide for humans are more important than the rights of species in these

marine areas” (only 5% agreed). Alpha reliability coefficients were .87 for the use orientation

and .77 for the protectionist orientation, suggesting that variables for each reliably measured

their respective orientation. Deletion of any of these variables did not improve reliability.

Table 32. Reliability analyses of items measuring value orientations toward marine areas a Orientations and variables

Mean b

Percent Agree (%)

Item total correlation

Alpha (α) if

deleted

Cronbachalpha (α)

Use orientation toward marine areas .85, .87

The primary value of marine areas is to provide benefits for humans -.42, -.79 24, 15 .71, .70 .80, .85

The needs of humans are more important than those of marine areas -.48, -.76 18, 11 .70, .69 .81, .85

Marine areas exist primarily to be used by humans -.77, -1.05 13, 5 .73, .81 .80, .80

The economic values that marine areas provide for humans are more important than the rights of species in these marine areas

-.55, -1.11 16, 5 .63, .71 .84, .84

Protectionist orientation toward marine areas .72, .77

Marine areas have value whether humans are present or not 1.22, 1.38 89, 91 .42, .56 .71, .72

Marine areas should be protected for their own sake rather than to simply meet the needs of humans

.77, 1.07 68, 79 .59, .64 .60, .66

Marine areas should have rights similar to the rights of humans .01, .25 35, 44 .56, .65 .62, .65

I object to fishing, harvesting, or collecting species from marine areas because it violates the rights of these species

-.50, -.46 21, 19 .49, .45 .67, .77

a First numbers listed = Phase 1 (coast), second numbers listed = Phase 2 (I-5 corridor). b Variables measured on 5-point recoded scales of -2 strongly disagree to +2 strongly agree.

K-means cluster analysis was performed on these variables to group respondents based on their

value orientations toward marine areas. A series of two to six group cluster analyses showed that

a four group solution provided the best fit for the data. To validate this solution, the data were

randomly sorted and a cluster analysis was conducted after each of five random sorts. These

additional analyses supported the solution identifying four distinct groups of residents, labeled:

Strong protectionist orientation

Moderate protectionist orientation

Mixed protection – use orientation


41

Use orientation

These groups were compared in terms of their responses to the original value orientation belief

statements. Respondents with use orientations agreed with all of the use related statements and

disagreed with all protectionist variables. Those with a mixed protection – use orientation mostly

had neutral mean or average responses (i.e., midpoint on scales) for all variables. Residents with

a moderate protectionist orientation slightly agreed with all protectionist variables and slightly

disagreed with all of the use related variables. Residents with a strong protectionist orientation

strongly agreed with all protectionist variables and strongly disagreed with all of the use related

variables. In total, the largest proportion of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents had a strong

protection value orientation toward marine areas (42%) and the smallest proportion had a use

related orientation toward these areas (human oriented, 10%). Another 28% of these residents

had a moderate protectionist orientation toward marine areas, and 21% had a mixed protection –

use orientation toward these areas. Table 33 shows that Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were

more likely than Phase 1 (coast) residents to have a strong protectionist orientation toward

marine areas (42% vs. 26%), whereas Phase 1 (coast) residents were more likely to have mixed

protection – use (28% vs. 21%) or just use orientations (16% vs. 10%) toward these areas.

Table 33. Value orientations toward marine areas a


Strong protectionist orientation 26 42

Moderate protectionist orientation 29 28

Mixed protection – use orientation 28 21

Use orientation 16 10 a Cell entries are percentages (%). 2(3, N = 948) = 31.47, p < .001, V = .18.

Demographic and Residential Characteristics

In total, 51% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were female and 49% were male, the average

age was 48 years old with 39% of the sample under 40 years of age and 61% 40 years of age and

older (48% over 50 years), and the majority (62%) had a four-year college degree or an advanced

degree (e.g., MS, PhD, Law, Medical; Table 34). Only 2% of these respondents had someone in

their household who was employed in the commercial fishing industry. Compared to Phase 1

(coast) residents, these Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were younger, more likely to be

female, more highly educated, and less likely to have someone in their household who was

employed in the commercial fishing industry.


42

Table 34. Demographic characteristics a

Phase 1 (Coast) Phase 2 (I-5 Corridor) 2 or t p value , V, or rpb

Sex 8.09 .004 .09 Male 58 49 Female 42 51

Adult age b 150.47 < .001 .37 20 – 29 years old 4 20 30 – 39 years old 9 19 40 – 49 years old 9 14 50 – 59 years old 17 18 60 – 69 years old 33 18 70 – 79 years old 20 8 80 – 89 years old 7 3 90 or older 2 1 Average adult age (mean years) 61 48 13.06 < .001 .38

Anyone in household employed in the commercial fishing industry

5.66 .017 .07

No 95 98 Yes 5 2

Highest level of education achieved 46.71 < .001 .21 Less than high school diploma 1 2 High school diploma or GED 28 20 2 year associates or trade school 28 16 4 year college degree (BS) 23 38 Advanced degree (MS, PhD, Law, Medical) 20 24 a Cell entries are percentages (%) unless specified as averages (means). b Nobody under 18 years of age was allowed to be sampled due to university institutional review board (IRB) regulations on research involving human subjects.

Table 35. Residential characteristics a

Phase 1 (Coast) Phase 2 (I-5 Corridor) 2 or t value p value V or rpb

Length of time lived in Oregon 27.01 < .001 .16 Less than 10 years 20 20 10 – 19 years 14 14 20 – 29 years 13 23 30 – 39 years 11 12 40 – 49 years 9 9 50 – 59 years 13 9 60 – 69 years 12 8 70 or more years 8 6 Average (mean years) 34 30 2.96 .003 .09

Length of time lived at current residence 20.28 .005 .14 Less than 10 years 47 60 10 – 19 years 26 18 20 – 29 years 14 12 30 – 39 years 6 4 40 – 49 years 4 3 50 – 59 years 2 2 60 – 69 years 1 1 70 or more years 0 0 Average (mean years) 14 11 3.36 .001 .10 a Cell entries are percentages (%) unless specified as averages (means).


43

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents had lived an average of 30 years in Oregon and 11 years at their

current residence (Table 35). Compared to Phase 1 (coast) residents, these Phase 2 (I-5 corridor)

respondents spent slightly less time living in Oregon and at their current residence.

The questionnaire for Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) also asked residents a number of additional questions

measuring some more of their sociodemographic characteristics. These additional questions were

not asked in the Phase 1 (coastal residents) questionnaire. Table 36 shows that the largest

proportion of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents lived in large cities of 250,000 or more people

(32%), followed by cities of 100,000 to 249,999 people (23%), small cities of 25,000 to 99,999

people (21%), towns of 5,000 to 24,999 people (15%), and farm or rural areas with few people

(6%). Few of these respondents (6%) owned a second home on the Oregon coast with these

individuals using the home mainly for recreation and property investment. The majority of Phase 2

(I-5 corridor) respondents had a liberal political orientation (51%), whereas 26% considered

themselves to be moderate and 23% had a conservative orientation.

Table 36. Additional demographic characteristics

Phase 2 (I-5 Corridor) a

Residential community Large city (250,000 or more people) 32 City (100,000 to 249,999 people) 23 Small city (25,000 to 99,999 people) 21 Town (5,000 to 24,999 people) 15 Small town (less than 5,000 people) 3 Farm or rural area with few people 6

Ownership of a second home on the Oregon coast No 94 Yes b 6

Political orientation Very conservative 5 Somewhat conservative 18 Moderate 26 Somewhat liberal 32 Very liberal 19

a Cell entries are percentages (%). b Main purpose of the second home: recreation (57% of the 6%), property investment (27% of the 6%), and other (e.g., inheritance, woodlot, 10% of the 6%).

Table 37 shows that the majority of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents lived in Portland region

counties, such as Multnomah (31%), Washington (16%), and Clackamas (12%). An additional 11%

lived in Lane county (e.g., Eugene), 8% lived in Marion county (e.g., Salem), 6% lived in Jackson

county (e.g., Medford), 4% lived in Benton (e.g., Corvallis) and Polk counties (e.g., Dallas), and

2% lived in Linn county (e.g., Albany). These results are consistent with population proportions of


44

counties reported in the U.S. Census. In terms of cities, the largest proportion of Phase 2 (I-5

corridor) respondents lived in Portland (32%), followed by Eugene (8%), Beaverton (7%), Salem

(4%), Corvallis (4%), and Hillsboro (3%).

Table 37. Location of residence Phase 2 (I-5 Corridor) a

County Multnomah (i.e., Portland area) 31 Washington (i.e., Portland area) 16 Clackamas (i.e., Portland area) 12 Lane (i.e., Eugene area) 11 Marion (i.e., Salem area) 8 Jackson (i.e., Medford area) 6 Benton (i.e., Corvallis area) 4 Polk (i.e., Dallas area) 4 Linn (i.e., Albany area) 2 Other (e.g., Columbia, Douglas, Josephine, Yamhill) 6

City / town Portland 32 Eugene 8 Beaverton 7 Salem 4 Corvallis 4 Hillsboro 3 Medford 2 Tigard 2 Oregon City 2 Monmouth 2 Keizer 2 Milwaukie 2 Lake Oswego 2 Other (e.g., Springfield, Clackamas, Ashland) 28

a Cell entries are percentages (%).

Predicting Support and Knowledge Associated with the Marine Reserves

This section extends these descriptive and bivariate results by understanding predictors of: (a)

support for the marine reserves in Oregon, (b) self-assessed and factual knowledge associated

with these reserves, and (c) trust in ODFW to manage these reserves. Only data from Phase 2 (I-

5 corridor) are reported here, but they are compared to results from Phase 1 (coast) described in

Needham and Cramer (2016). To assess predictors of support for the marine reserves, reliability

analyses were first conducted for each multiple-item concept (intentions to support, attitudes,

environmental value orientations, ecological concern, trust in the managing agency, self-assessed

knowledge about the reserves). Table 38 shows that reliabilities for all of these concepts were

extremely high (Cronbach alphas = .85 to .97) and much higher than the accepted cut-off (> .65).


45

Deletion of any item from its respective concept did not improve reliability, so all items were

retained. These results justify combining items into composite indices for each concept.

Table 38. Reliability analysis of multiple cognitions associated with Oregon’s marine reserves Item Total

Correlation Alpha if deleted

Cronbach Alpha

Behavioral intentions (support for marine reserves in Oregon) .91 Voting certainty a .71 .91 Support having marine reserves in Oregon b .82 .78 Against establishing marine reserves in Oregon b .73 .80 In favor of implementing marine reserves in Oregon b .84 .77 Attitudes toward marine reserve establishment c .97 Harmful to beneficial .91 .97 Negative to positive .95 .96 Dislike to like .92 .97 Bad to good .94 .96 Environmental Value Orientations b .85 The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset .48 .84 Human interference with nature has disastrous consequences .54 .83 Humans are severely abusing the environment .70 .82 Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist .58 .83 Earth has plenty of natural resources if we learn to develop them .44 .85 The so-called ecological crisis has been greatly exaggerated .69 .82 Humans have the right to modify environment to suit their needs .56 .83 Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature .70 .81 Ecological Concern d .94 Ecological health of marine animals in Oregon .84 .92 Ecological health of marine fish in Oregon .84 .92 Ecological health of marine areas (ocean) in Oregon .87 .91 Ecological health of rivers and streams in Oregon .77 .93 Ecological health of bays and estuaries in Oregon .83 .92 Trust in Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (I trust ODFW to:) b .96 Provide truthful information about marine reserves .86 .95 Manage using best information about non-human species .88 .96 Provide best available information about marine reserves .86 .95 Manage using best information about human use of areas .84 .95 Work with other organizations to manage marine reserves .84 .96 Provide me enough information to make marine reserve actions .79 .96 Make good decisions regarding marine reserve management .88 .95 Provide timely information about marine reserves .82 .96 Use public input to inform marine reserve management .78 .96 Self-assessed knowledge of Oregon marine reserves .91

How informed do you feel about marine reserves in Oregon e .60 .90 How knowledgeable do you feel about marine reserves in Oregon f .64 .89 Understand purpose of marine reserves in Oregon g .71 .88 Understand role of science in marine reserves in Oregon g .74 .88 Understand role of public in marine reserves in Oregon g .77 .87 Understand where marine reserves are located in Oregon g .67 .88 Understand how marine reserves would be managed in Oregon g .73 .88 Understand rules/regulations of marine reserves in Oregon g .82 .87

a Coded from -4 “extremely certain to vote against marine reserves” to 4 “extremely certain to vote for marine reserves” b Coded on a 5-point scale of 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree” c Coded on 5-point scales from 1 “dislike/bad/negative/harmful” to 5 “like/good/positive/beneficial” d Coded on 9-point scale from 0 “not healthy” to 8 “very healthy” e Coded on 4-point scale from 1 “not informed” to 4 “extremely informed” f Coded on 4-point scale from 1 “not knowledgeable” to 4 “extremely knowledgeable” g Coded on 9-point scale from 0 “do not understand” to 8 “fully understand”


46

Table 39. Influence of cognitions and demographics on behavioral intentions to support Oregon’s marine reserves with all variables included

Dependent variable: Behavioral intentions (support) a, b

Independent variables

Zero-order correlation (r)

p-value

B

SEB

β

p-value

Factual knowledge c .101 .044 -.011 .088 -.004 .905 Self-assessed knowledge d .168 .001 .072 .032 .076 .024 Trust in ODFW e .326 < .001 .083 .027 .090 .003 Attitude toward marine reserves f .813 < .001 .489 .029 .637 < .001 Environmental value orientations g .637 < .001 .161 .035 .180 < .001 Ecological concern h -.311 < .001 -.025 .016 -.050 .107 Sex (male) i -.160 .001 .049 .040 .035 .222 Age (in years) -.173 < .001 -.002 .002 -.038 .299 Years lived in Oregon (in years) -.252 < .001 -.001 .001 -.023 .557 Member of commercial fishing industry j -.002 .969 -.222 .119 -.053 .063 Education level (college degree or more) k .162 .001 -.039 .044 -.027 .372 Community (large city 100,000+ people) l .218 < .001 -.032 .041 -.023 .442 Political orientation (liberal) m .504 < .001 .063 .050 .045 .208 a R2 = .710; F = 73.04; p <.001. b Computed from 4 variables (Table 38). Higher number means more support for the marine reserves. c Computed as number of total correct answers to 11 factual questions (Table 11). d Computed from 8 variables (Table 38) with higher number having more knowledge. e Computed from 9 variables on scale from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree” (Table 38) with higher number meaning more trust. f Computed from 4 variables on a 5-point semantic differential scale (dislike/like, bad/good, negative/positive, harmful/beneficial; Table 38) with higher number having more positive attitude. g Computed from 8 variables on scale from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree” (Table 38) with higher number being more biocentric or environmentally oriented. h Computed from 5 variables on scale from 0 “not healthy” to 8 “very healthy” (Table 38). i Item coded as 0 “female” or 1 “male.” j Item coded as 0 “no” or 1 “yes.” k Item coded as 0 “less than 4-year college degree” or 1 “4-year college degree or more” l Item coded as 0 “small city, town, or rural area (< 100,00 people)” or 1 “large city (100,00 or more people).” m Item coded as 0 “conservative or moderate” or 1 “liberal.”

In addition to these multiple-item concepts, the questionnaire also contained 11 true / false or

multiple choice statements measuring respondent factual knowledge associated with the Oregon

marine reserves. These results are presented in Table 11. This combined factual knowledge

score, all of the concepts listed in Table 38, and several sociodemographic variables (Tables 34-

37) were included in a multiple regression analysis predicting behavioral intentions to vote in

support or opposition toward Oregon’s marine reserves. Table 39 presents results of this

analysis. Initially, all of the predictors were significantly correlated with support for these marine

reserves, except having a member of the household employed in the commercial fishing industry.

The strongest correlations were attitude toward these reserves (r = .81), environmental value

orientations (r = .64), and political orientation (liberal, r = .50). When controlling for all of the

other predictors in the multiple regression model, however, only four of the 13 predictors were

significantly related to support for marine reserves in Oregon: attitudes toward the marine


47

reserves, environmental value orientations, trust in the managing agency (ODFW), and self-

assessed knowledge about the reserves. All of the other predictors were not statistically related to

intentions to vote in support of these marine reserves.

Table 40. Influence of cognitions and demographics on behavioral intentions to support Oregon’s marine reserves with only significant variables included




p-value

B

SEB

β

p-value

Self-assessed knowledge c .158 .001 .080 .026 .082 .002 Trust in ODFW d .341 < .001 .066 .026 .072 .011 Attitude toward marine reserves e .812 < .001 .519 .027 .666 < .001 Environmental value orientations f .614 < .001 .178 .030 .195 < .001 a R2 = .701; F = 248.53; p <.001. b Computed from 4 variables (Table 38). Higher number means more support for the marine reserves. c Computed from 8 variables (Table 38) with higher number having more knowledge. d Computed from 9 variables on scale from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree” (Table 38) with higher number meaning more trust. e Computed from 4 variables on a 5-point semantic differential scale (dislike/like, bad/good, negative/positive, harmful/beneficial; Table 38) with higher number having more positive attitude. f Computed from 8 variables on scale from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree” (Table 38) with higher number being more biocentric or environmentally oriented.

This regression model was then re-run with only the significant predictors from Table 39. Attitudes

toward the marine reserves, environmental value orientations, trust in the managing agency

(ODFW), and self-assessed knowledge all had significant positive relationships with intentions to

vote in support of marine reserves in Oregon (Table 40). Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents who

were more likely to vote in support of the marine reserves in Oregon had more favorable attitudes

toward these reserves, had more biocentric or environmentally oriented value orientations, were

more trusting of ODFW, and believed they were more knowledgeable of these reserves. The

strongest predictor of intentions to vote in support of these marine reserves was attitudes toward

the reserves (β = .67) followed by value orientations (β = .20), self-assessed knowledge (β = .08),

and trust (β = .07). Taken together, these four concepts collectively predicted 70% of the variance

in intentions to vote in support for marine reserves in Oregon (R2 = .70). With the exception of

self-assessed knowledge, these results from Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were identical to

Phase 1 (coast) residents, as attitudes, value orientations, and trust were also significant predictors

for Phase 1 (coast) residents (Needham & Cramer, 2016).


48

Additional multiple regression analyses examined the influence of information sources on these

intentions to support or oppose the marine reserves. Initially, four of the predictors were

significantly positively correlated with support for these marine reserves: community or

environmental groups (r = .14), work or school (r = .11), social media websites (r = .10), and

radio news / programs (r = .09; Table 41). Two of the predictors were significantly negatively

correlated with support for these marine reserves: fishing regulations brochures (r = -.17) and

discussions with government agency employees (r = -.11). When controlling for all of the other

predictors in the multiple regression model, however, only three of the 13 sources of information

about marine reserves in Oregon were significantly related to intentions to vote in support of the

marine reserves in Oregon: discussions with government agency employees, fishing regulations

brochures, and community or environmental groups. All of the other predictors were not

significantly related to support for the marine reserves in Oregon.

Table 41. Influence of sources of information on behavioral intentions to support Oregon’s marine reserves with all variables included


Independent variables – Sources of information about marine reserves in Oregon c


p-value

B

SEB

β

p-value

Newspaper articles .063 .181 -.002 .047 -.003 .958 Radio news / programs .092 .050 .053 .049 .072 .281 Television news / programs .087 .064 .044 .051 .062 .394 Magazine articles / books .056 .239 -.057 .054 -.079 .291 Government agency websites .091 .053 .061 .052 .070 .246 Social websites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) .104 .027 .070 .060 .072 .244 Other websites .075 .112 -.009 .053 -.012 .857 Fishing regulations brochures -.170 < .001 -.144 .038 -.215 < .001 Government agency employees -.111 .019 -.330 .084 -.231 < .001 Community or environmental groups .138 .003 .153 .056 .170 .007 Work or school .110 .202 .075 .046 .110 .104 Friends or family members .014 .766 -.005 .046 -.007 .909 Meetings or presentations .053 .264 .029 .073 .025 .694 a R2 = .119; F = 4.54; p <.001. b Computed from 4 variables (Table 38). Higher number means more support for the marine reserves. c Measured on 4-point scale from 0 “never” to 4 “often.”

The model was then re-run with only the significant predictors. As indicated in Table 42, the

only variable that had a significant positive relationship with intentions to support the marine

reserves in Oregon was community or environmental groups. Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents

who communicated with community or environmental groups about these marine reserves were

more likely to support these reserves. This result is consistent with Phase 1 (coast) residents

(Needham & Cramer, 2016). Fishing regulations brochures and discussions with government

agency employees, however, both had significant negative relationships with support for marine


49

reserves in Oregon. This result is not consistent with Phase 1 (coast) respondents (Needham &

Cramer, 2016). It is possible that the fishing regulations brochures are most predominately used

by anglers, and these individuals are likely most concerned about limitations on fishing imposed

by these marine reserves, so the negative relationship could be explained more by user group

(i.e., anglers) than how individuals learn about the reserves. The strongest significant predictor of

support was community or environmental groups (β = .27). The weakest predictor was

discussions with government agency employees (β = -.15). Taken together, however, these three

sources only predicted 10% of the variance in intentions to support (R2 = .10); clearly there are

other information sources that predict support.

Table 42. Influence of sources of information on behavioral intentions to support Oregon’s marine reserves with only significant variables included




p-value

B

SEB

β

p-value

Fishing regulations brochures -.190 < .001 -.143 .032 -.214 < .001 Government agency employees -.089 .054 -.213 .075 -.147 .005 Community or environmental groups .143 .002 .244 .045 .270 < .001 a R2 = .095; F = 16.094; p <.001. b Computed from 4 variables (Table 38). Higher number means more support for the marine reserves. c Measured on 4-point scale from 0 “never” to 4 “often.”

Table 43. Influence of sources of information on self-assessed knowledge of Oregon’s marine reserves with all variables included

Dependent variable: Self-assessed knowledge a, b



p-value

B

SEB

β

p-value

Newspaper articles .516 < .001 .114 .038 .155 .003 Radio news / programs .479 < .001 .043 .039 .056 .273 Television news / programs .479 < .001 .009 .041 .013 .820 Magazine articles / books .535 < .001 .100 .043 .133 .021 Government agency websites .497 < .001 .157 .042 .171 < .001 Social websites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) .402 < .001 -.061 .048 -.061 .199 Other websites .501 < .001 .090 .042 .112 .033 Fishing regulations brochures .429 < .001 .080 .031 .113 .009 Government agency employees .339 < .001 .017 .067 .012 .796 Community or environmental groups .476 < .001 .070 .045 .074 .121 Work or school .468 < .001 .082 .037 .115 .026 Friends or family members .498 < .001 .063 .036 .085 .083 Meetings or presentations .395 < .001 .011 .059 .009 .856 a R2 = .488; F = 32.28; p <.001. b Computed from 8 variables (Table 38). Higher number means more knowledge. c Measured on 4-point scale from 0 “never” to 4 “often.”

The next analysis examined these sources of information as possible predictors of self-assessed

knowledge of Oregon’s marine reserves. Table 43 presents results of this analysis. Initially, all of


50

the predictors were significantly correlated with self-assessed knowledge with the strongest

correlations being magazine articles / books (r = .54), newspaper articles (r = .52), and websites

other than social media and government websites (r = .50). When controlling for all of the other

predictors in the multiple regression model, six of the 13 predictors were significantly related to

self-assessed knowledge about these marine reserves: newspaper articles, magazines / books,

government agency websites, other websites, fishing regulations brochures, and work or school

(Table 43). All of the other predictors were not significantly related to self-assessed knowledge

about marine reserves in Oregon.

The model was then re-run with only these significant predictors. As indicated in Table 44, six

variables had significant positive relationships with self-assessed knowledge about these marine

reserves: newspaper articles, magazines / books, government agency websites, other websites,

fishing regulations brochures, and work or school. This means that Phase 2 (I-5 corridor)

respondents who learned about the marine reserves through newspapers, magazines / books,

government agency websites, other websites, fishing regulations brochures, and work or school

were more likely to believe they were more knowledgeable about these reserves. Both newspaper

articles and government agency websites were also significant predictors for Phase 1 (coast)

residents (Needham & Cramer, 2016). The strongest significant predictor of self-assessed

knowledge among Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents was newspaper articles (β = .22). This is

consistent with Phase 1 (coast) residents (Needham & Cramer, 2016). The weakest significant

predictor was websites other than social media and government websites (β = .11). Taken

together, these six sources of information predicted 48% of the variance in self-assessed

knowledge about the reserves (R2 = .48).

Table 44. Influence of sources of information on self-assessed knowledge of Oregon’s marine reserves with only significant variables included

Dependent variable: Self-assessed knowledge a, b



p-value

B

SEB

β

p-value

Newspaper articles .513 < .001 .159 .032 .219 < .001 Magazine articles / books .537 < .001 .119 .036 .159 .001 Government agency websites .492 < .001 .159 .040 .174 < .001 Other websites .491 < .001 .087 .037 .108 .020 Fishing regulations brochures .432 < .001 .101 .028 .143 < .001 Work or school .466 < .001 .117 .030 .164 < .001 a R2 = .477; F = 68.54; p <.001. b Computed from 8 variables (Table 38). Higher number means more knowledge. c Measured on 4-point scale from 0 “never” to 4 “often.”


51

The next analysis examined the influence of these sources of information on factual knowledge

of Oregon’s marine reserves (i.e., true / false questions). Table 45 presents results of this

analysis. Initially, all of the predictors were significantly correlated with factual knowledge with

the strongest correlations being friends or family (r = .42), websites other than social media and

government websites (r = .37), and newspaper articles (r = .36). When controlling for all of the

other predictors in the multiple regression model, however, only four of the 13 predictors were

significantly related to factual knowledge about the marine reserves: newspaper articles, social

websites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter), other websites, and friends and family (Table 45). All of the

other predictors were not significantly related to factual knowledge about the marine reserves.

Table 45. Influence of sources of information on factual knowledge of Oregon’s marine reserves with all variables included

Dependent variable: Factual knowledge a, b



p-value

B

SEB

β

p-value

Newspaper articles .357 < .001 .032 .016 .121 .048 Radio news / programs .320 < .001 .007 .017 .024 .689 Television news / programs .311 < .001 .017 .018 .062 .351 Magazine articles / books .309 < .001 .001 .019 -.002 .981 Government agency websites .286 < .001 .028 .018 .085 .126 Social websites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) .184 < .001 -.076 .021 -.213 < .001 Other websites .367 < .001 .054 .018 .189 .003 Fishing regulations brochures .346 < .001 .022 .013 .088 .097 Government agency employees .239 < .001 .019 .029 .035 .511 Community or environmental groups .302 < .001 .015 .019 .043 .452 Work or school .285 < .001 -.015 .016 -.061 .332 Friends or family members .419 < .001 .063 .016 .233 < .001 Meetings or presentations .296 < .001 .021 .025 .049 .398 a R2 = .272; F = 12.33; p <.001. b Computed from 11 variables (Table 11). Higher number means more knowledge. c Measured on 4-point scale from 0 “never” to 4 “often.”

The model was then re-run with only significant predictors. As indicated in Table 46, three

variables had significant positive relationships with factual knowledge about marine reserves in

Oregon: newspaper articles, other websites (i.e., not social media or agency websites), and

friends or family. This means that Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents who learned about these

reserves through newspaper articles, other websites, and friends or family were more likely to be

more factually knowledgeable about these reserves. One variable, social websites (e.g.,

Facebook, Twitter), had a significant negative relationship with factual knowledge about the

marine reserves, suggesting that these respondents who learned about the reserves through social

websites were less factually knowledgeable about these reserves. These results are identical to

those for Phase 1 (coast) residents (Needham & Cramer, 2016). The strongest significant

predictor of factual knowledge among Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents was friends or family


52

members (β = .29) and the weakest significant predictor was social websites (β = -.18). These

four sources of information predicted 25% of the variance in factual knowledge (R2 = .25).

Table 46. Influence of sources of information on factual knowledge of Oregon’s marine reserves with only significant variables included

Dependent variable: Factual knowledge a, b



p-value

B

SEB

β

p-value

Newspaper articles .365 < .001 .054 .013 .205 < .001 Social websites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) .176 < .001 -.065 .019 -.180 .001 Other websites .359 < .001 .069 .015 .240 < .001 Friends or family members .417 < .001 .079 .014 .291 < .001 a R2 = .250; F = 37.35; p <.001. b Computed from 11 variables (Table 11). Higher number means more knowledge. c Measured on 4-point scale from 0 “never” to 4 “often.”

Table 47. Influence of cognitions and demographics on trust in Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife with all variables included

Dependent variable: Trust in ODFW a, b



p-value

B

SEB

β

p-value

Factual knowledge c .050 .322 -.010 .167 -.003 .953 Self-assessed knowledge d .079 .113 .037 .060 .036 .531 Vote for marine reserves e .265 < .001 .021 .031 .056 .498 Attitude toward marine reserves f .302 < .001 .208 .074 .246 .005 Environmental value orientations g .255 < .001 .168 .068 .168 .014 Ecological concern h .085 .091 .116 .029 .206 < .001 Sex (male) i -.132 .008 -.070 .076 -.046 .354 Age (in years) .001 .985 .002 .003 .039 .537 Years lived in Oregon (in years) -.038 .449 .001 .003 .013 .847 Member of commercial fishing industry j .048 .342 .091 .224 .020 .685 Education level (college degree or more) k .055 .273 .039 .083 .025 .635 Community (large city 100,000+ people) l .080 .113 .032 .078 .021 .678 Political orientation (liberal) m .102 .043 -.134 .094 -.087 .156 a R2 = .153; F = 5.32; p <.001. b Computed from 9 variables on scale from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree” (Table 38). Higher number means higher trust. c Computed as number of total correct answers to 11 factual questions (Table 11). d Computed from 8 variables (Table 38) with higher number having more knowledge. e Coded from -4 “extremely certain to vote against marine reserves” to 4 “extremely certain to vote for marine reserves” (combination of two survey variables). f Computed from 4 variables on a 5-point semantic differential scale (dislike/like, bad/good, negative/positive, harmful/beneficial; Table 38) with higher number having more positive attitude. g Computed from 8 variables on scale from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree” (Table 38) with higher number being more biocentric or environmentally oriented. h Computed from 5 variables on scale from 0 “not healthy” to 8 “very healthy” (Table 38). i Item coded as 0 “female” or 1 “male.” j Item coded as 0 “no” or 1 “yes.” k Item coded as 0 “less than 4-year college degree” or 1 “4-year college degree or more” l Item coded as 0 “small city, town, or rural area (< 100,00 people)” or 1 “large city (100,00 or more people).” m Item coded as 0 “conservative or moderate” or 1 “liberal.”


53

The final analysis involved understanding support of the agency (i.e., ODFW) as marine reserve

stewards and who supports and trusts this agency in this context. Table 47 presents the results of

a multiple regression analysis of cognitive and demographic factors predicting trust in ODFW.

Initially, five of the 13 predictors were significantly correlated with agency trust. The strongest

positive correlations were attitude toward these reserves (r = .30), intention to vote for the

reserves (r = .27), and environmental value orientations (r = .26). Being male was negatively

correlated with trust (r = -.13). When controlling for all of the other predictors in the multiple

regression model, however, only three of the 13 predictors were significantly related to trust in

ODFW: attitudes toward the marine reserves, environmental value orientations, and ecological

concern (Table 47). All of the other predictors were not significantly related to trust.

Table 48. Influence of cognitions and demographics on trust in Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife with only significant variables included

Dependent variable: Trust in ODFW a, b



p-value

B

SEB

β

p-value

Attitude toward marine reserves c .317 < .001 .261 .048 .307 < .001 Environmental value orientations d .240 < .001 .128 .057 .128 .026 Ecological concern e .081 .089 .128 .027 .225 < .001 a R2 = .148; F = 24.61; p <.001. b Computed from 9 variables on scale from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree” (Table 38). Higher number means higher trust. c Computed from 4 variables on a 5-point semantic differential scale (dislike/like, bad/good, negative/positive, harmful/beneficial; Table 38) with higher number having more positive attitude. d Computed from 8 variables on scale from 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree” (Table 38) with higher number being more biocentric or environmentally oriented. e Computed from 5 variables on scale from 0 “not healthy” to 8 “very healthy” (Table 38).

The model was then re-run with just the significant predictors. As indicated in Table 48, attitudes

toward the marine reserves, environmental value orientations, and ecological concern all had

significant positive relationships with trust. This means that Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents who

were more likely to trust ODFW had more favorable attitudes toward these marine reserves, had

more biocentric or environmentally oriented values, and were more likely to perceive ecological

resources in the state as healthy. The strongest significant predictor of trust was attitudes toward

the reserves (β = .31) followed by ecological concern (β = .23) and environmental value

orientations (β = .13). These results are identical to those for Phase 1 (coast) residents (Needham &

Cramer, 2016). Taken together, these four concepts collectively predicted 15% of the variance in

trust in ODFW for Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents (R2 = .15).


54

IMPLICATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on these findings, the following broad implications and recommendations, in no particular

order, are made for Oregon marine areas and reserves:

Although residents overwhelmingly perceived Oregon’s marine areas and resources (e.g.,

ocean, animals, fish) to be moderately or very healthy, fewer than one-third agreed that

conditions have improved in recent years. These findings were consistent across both

Phase 1 (coast) and Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents. It is clear that residents are

concerned about Oregon’s marine areas and are an important constituency for agencies to

work with, inform, and educate about these areas and efforts that agencies and others are

taking to address threats in the areas.

The majority of residents, especially those in the I-5 corridor (Phase 2), believed that the

government should do more to help protect marine areas in Oregon. In addition, less than

one-third of respondents agreed that laws protecting these marine areas are too strict or

that managers are already doing everything they can to protect these areas. It appears that

a large percentage of residents, especially those in the I-5 corridor (Phase 2), believe

there is room for improvement in agency management and policies associated with

marine conservation in Oregon.

The organization that almost all residents believed should have the greatest influence in

managing Oregon’s marine areas was the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

(ODFW), but the majority thought that a variety of other groups should also have a major

influence (e.g., US Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Residents also trusted most of these

groups to contribute to managing this state’s marine areas. Phase 2 (I-5 corridor)

respondents were more likely than those on the coast (Phase 1) to trust most of these

groups and organizations, and believe they should influence management of marine areas

in Oregon. Regardless, residents clearly believe that ODFW should be the lead agency

for managing these areas, but should also collaborate with several other agencies and

organizations in these efforts. These groups should also work together and strive to build

and foster trust among residents both along the coast and elsewhere in the state.

Although more than 60% of respondents have visited at least one of the five marine

reserve sites in Oregon and the majority reported understanding the purpose of these


55

reserves, fewer than 50% felt informed and knowledgeable about these reserves, knew

where the reserves are located, and understood the role of science and public involvement

in these reserves. Fewer than 30% understood how these reserves are managed, including

rules and regulations associated with these areas. Factual knowledge about these reserves

was also extremely low with an average of only 36% (Phase 2, I-5 corridor) and 43%

(Phase 1, coast) of the factual questions about these reserves answered correctly (i.e.,

failing grades). In addition, only 17% of I-5 corridor (Phase 2) and 18% of coastal (Phase

1) residents agreed that it was easy to access and find information about the reserves, and

only 7% of I-5 corridor (Phase 2) and 13% of coastal (Phase 1) residents agreed that

managers have done a good job educating the public about these areas. Although coastal

residents (Phase 1) were slightly more knowledgeable of these reserves compared to

residents along the I-5 corridor (Phase 2), it is clear that resident knowledge about these

reserves is minimal and much more is needed to inform and educate citizens about these

areas. Major information campaigns are needed and most residents would prefer this

information to be disseminated through conventional channels such as newspapers and

television. Education and engagement catering to different audiences and settings,

however, may not be needed because of the consistently low self-assessed and factual

knowledge across settings. Managers may want to pinpoint messages and facts about the

marine reserves and convey these to the entire public, as there are clearly some facts that

are understood by few individuals. For example, fewer than 35% of Phase 1 (coast)

residents and fewer than 25% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents knew: (a) that five

marine reserves have been established and where these reserves are located, (b) how

these areas are managed and any rules and regulations at these reserves, and (c) that non-

extractive recreation and tourism activities are allowed in these reserves. These topic

areas should offer a starting point for improving resident knowledge of these reserves.

The majority of residents believed that scientific research and non-extractive recreation

activities should be allowed in Oregon’s marine reserves, but did not think that

recreational or commercial fishing should be allowed in these areas. Although both types

of fishing are not currently permitted in Oregon’s marine reserves, they are allowed in

some of the adjacent marine protected areas. To avoid public confusion and contention,

therefore, it is important for managers to clearly articulate to residents the differences

between reserves and protected areas, activities that are allowed within each designation,

and the rationale for these different allowances.


56

The group that residents believed would benefit most from Oregon’s marine reserves is

scientists / researchers. Fewer than the majority believed that recreationists, businesses,

people who do not live on the coast, and recreational and commercial anglers would

benefit. In fact, many residents believed that these other groups, especially recreational

and commercial fishing, would be harmed by the reserves. It is important, therefore, for

agencies to inform and educate residents about potential benefits of these reserves for all

groups, such as the potential for more tourism revenue and its impacts on local

businesses, as well as the ability of fish populations to recover thereby enhancing long-

term sustainability of the recreational and commercial fishing industries.

An overwhelming majority of residents had strong positive attitudes toward marine areas

in general and marine reserves in Oregon in particular. In addition, almost 70% of coastal

residents (Phase 1) and 90% of those along the I-5 corridor (Phase 2) would vote in

support of these reserves. There was also strong agreement that these marine reserves

would provide advantages (e.g., improve understanding, allow populations to recover,

protect species diversity). There was significantly less agreement, however, regarding

potential disadvantages associated with these reserves, such as reduced commercial

fishing, increased management costs, difficulties with enforcement, and increased

restrictions on people using the areas. Compared to Phase 1 (coast) residents, Phase 2 (I-5

corridor) respondents were more likely to agree with these advantages of the reserves and

disagree with several of these disadvantages. These disadvantages, however, are still

important and realistic because there will always be costs associated with placing sites

under protected area designation. When informing and educating residents about these

marine reserves, therefore, managers should strive for a transparent and balanced

perspective emphasizing not only the potential advantages of these reserves, but also the

realistic challenges, disadvantages, and costs likely to be encountered with these areas.

The majority of both Phase 1 (coast) and Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) residents agreed they

trusted the managing agency (ODFW) to manage marine reserves in Oregon. This is

important for several reasons. First, trust can influence support of agency goals and

objectives. Residents who trust ODFW, for example, may be more likely to support

future management actions associated with these reserves. Second, persuasion models

(e.g., elaboration likelihood, heuristic systematic) suggest that perceived similarity and

trust are important determinants of effective information and education campaigns (Eagly


57

& Chaiken, 1993). Residents who trust an agency are often more motivated to attend to

its informational and educational efforts. Campaign effectiveness may be lower with

residents who are less trusting of the managing agency. Third, agencies should strive to

understand constituent opinions, values, and goals because to preserve trust and a strong

constituent base, management should be tailored to reflect these views whenever practical

and feasible. If constituent views are not reflected in management, reasons for

inconsistencies should be shared so they can be weighed in relation to considerations of

trust. The public now demands and expects involvement in natural resource decision

making and, if ignored, may resort to administrative appeals, court cases, and ballot

initiatives. Managers, therefore, should seek positive relationships with residents and

actively generate and maintain trust by fostering dialogue with citizens.

The largest proportions of both Phase 1 (coast) and Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) residents had

biocentric (i.e., nature-oriented) value orientations toward the environment in general and

protectionist orientations toward marine areas in particular. In addition, 60% of Phase 1

(coast) and 82% of Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents believed in protecting Oregon’s

marine areas with little or no human utilization. Taken together, these results suggest that

activities and management strategies encouraging deleterious effects on marine areas are

unlikely to be supported by a large number of residents. Multivariate analyses also

showed that value orientations can predict attitudes about marine reserves, behavioral

intentions toward these areas, and trust in the agency responsible for managing these

reserves, so knowing value orientations of residents can be useful for estimating possible

reactions to potentially controversial management actions. In addition, value orientations

are stable and resistant to change, so attempts to inform individuals with biocentric or

protectionist value orientations to consider adopting attitudes and supporting actions that

may be harmful to marine areas are unlikely to be successful.

Compared to Phase 1 (coast) residents, Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were less

knowledgeable of Oregon’s marine reserves, but had more positive attitudes and were

more supportive of the reserves, more likely to agree with advantages of the reserves, and

less likely to agree with disadvantages of the reserves. Despite these differences, both

Phase 1 (coast) and Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) residents were highly supportive of these

reserves, suggesting relatively widespread support of Oregon’s marine reserve system.


58

Among Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents, the most important values they assigned to

Oregon’s marine reserves focused on environmental and scientific attributes such as

protecting habitat, species, and water quality, and preserving areas for scientific

discovery or study. Their least important values were associated with human uses such as

tourism and recreation activities. This is important because these values reported by

residents align with the fundamental agency missions of these reserves to “conserve

marine habitats and biodiversity” and “serve as scientific reference sites to learn about

marine reserves and inform nearshore management.”

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents were also asked about the idea of marine wilderness.

Over 60% of these respondents believed that Oregon’s marine reserves could possibly be

called marine wilderness in the future, but fewer than the majority believed these reserves

should be called marine wilderness and even fewer would change their visitation to these

areas or their opinions about these areas if they were ever called marine wilderness.

Designating these reserves as marine wilderness, therefore, may not likely provide major

appreciable benefits to residents, at least in the short-term. In addition, marine wilderness

designation would not likely inspire any major public backlash. If Oregon ever wanted to

move in this direction, reactions from this population would tend to be neutral to positive.

Both Phase 1 (coast) and Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents who were more likely to vote

in support of the marine reserves in Oregon had more favorable attitudes toward these

reserves, had more biocentric or environmentally oriented value orientations, and were

more trusting of the managing agency (i.e., ODFW). These attitudes, value orientations,

and trust explained approximately 70% of the variance in support for these marine

reserves. From a management perspective, this suggests that it is critically important to

take steps toward increasing citizen – agency trust even more, educating residents about

these reserves to improve knowledge and foster positive attitudes toward these areas, and

connecting agency outreach and communication efforts with residents’ value systems.

Both Phase 1 (coast) and Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents who were most factually

knowledgeable of these marine reserves were most likely to learn about these reserves

through newspaper articles, friends and family, and internet websites other than social

media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) and government websites. In fact, social media websites

had a significant negative relationship with factual knowledge, suggesting that

respondents who learned about the reserves through social media were less


59

knowledgeable about the reserves. These sources of information, however, only

explained less than 40% of the variance in factual knowledge across Phase 1 (coast) and

Phase 2 (I-5 corridor) respondents, suggesting that there are other predictors and sources

that inform factual knowledge associated with these reserves. Regardless, this is

important for informing managing agencies about avenues for disseminating

communication campaigns about the Oregon marine reserve system.

Finally, this project used cross-sectional data at two points in time (coastal residents in

2013, I-5 corridor residents in 2016) to provide baseline snapshots of resident perceptions

of marine reserves in Oregon at relatively early stages in the implementation of these

areas. Although most residents would vote in favor of these reserves, had positive

attitudes toward the benefits of these areas, and trusted ODFW to manage these reserves,

cognitions can change over time. It is critically important, therefore, for managers to

cultivate and maintain this support and trust, and monitor these social conditions over

time (e.g., every 5-10 years) to ensure they do not deteriorate.


60

REFERENCES

Amolo, R. C. (2010). Habitat mapping and identifying suitable habitat of Redfish Rocks Pilot

Marine Reserve, Port Orford, OR. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Oregon State University.

Angulo-Valdés, J. A., & Hatcher, B. G. (2010). A new typology of benefits derived from marine

protected areas. Marine Policy, 34, 635-644.

Bright, A., Manfredo, M., & Fulton, D. (2000). Segmenting the public: An application of value

orientations to wildlife planning in Colorado. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 28, 218-226.

Brown, T. C. (1984). The concept of value in resource allocation. Land Economics, 60, 231-246.

Clark, J. (1996). Coastal zone management handbook. Miami, FL: CRC Press.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Connelly, N. A., Brown, T. L., & Decker, D. J. (2003). Factors affecting response rates to natural

resource – focused mail surveys: Empirical evidence of declining rates over time. Society

and Natural Resources, 16, 541-549.

Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.

Crowfoot, J. E., & Wondolleck, J. M. (1990). Environmental disputes: Community involvement

in conflict resolution. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Dalton, T. M. (2005). Beyond biogeography: A framework for involving the public in planning

of US marine protected areas. Conservation Biology, 19, 1392-1401.

Decker, D. J., Krueger, C. C., Baer, R. A., Knuth, B. A., & Richmond, M. E. (1996). From

clients to stakeholders: A philosophical shift for fish and wildlife management. Human

Dimensions of Wildlife, 1, 70-82.

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode

surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The new environmental paradigm. Journal of

Environmental Education, 9(4), 10-19.

Dunlap, R., Van Liere, K., Mertig, A., & Jones, R. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the new

ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425-442.

Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.


61

Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action

approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Fishbein, M., & Manfredo, M. J. (1992). A theory of behavior change. In M. J. Manfredo (Ed.),

Influencing human behavior: Theory and applications in recreation, tourism, and natural

resources management (pp. 29-50). Champaign, IL: Sagamore.

Fulton, D. C., Manfredo, M. J., & Lipscomb, J. (1996). Wildlife value orientations: A conceptual

and measurement approach. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1(2), 24-47.

Gallagher, M. B., & Heppell, S. S. (2010). Essential habitat identification for young-of-the-year

rockfishes along the central Oregon coast. Marine and Coastal Fisheries, 2, 60-72.

Hair, J. F., & Black, W. C. (2000). Cluster analysis. In L. G. Grimm & P. R. Yarnold (Eds.),

Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics (pp. 147-206). Washington,

D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Heppell, S., Barth, J., & Reiff, H. (2008). Sizing and spacing of marine reserves workshop

report. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife.

Ives, C. D., & Kendal, D. (2014). The role of social values in the management of ecological

systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 144, 67-72.

Laferriere, A., Matteson, K., & Johnson, C. (2011). Design and implementation of a monitoring

framework for Oregon’s marine reserves. Paper presented at the Oregon Chapter

American Fisheries Society Annual Meeting. February, Bend, OR.

Lanier, A., Romsos, C., & Goldfinger, C. (2007). Habitat mapping for Oregon’s continental

margin: A nested GIS approach to mapping scale, mapping methods, and accuracy

quantification. Marine Geodesy, 30, 51-76.

Lück, M. (2008). The encyclopedia of tourism and recreation in marine environments.

Wallingford, UK: CABI.

Manfredo, M. J., Teel, T. L., & Bright, A. D. (2004). Applications of the concepts of values and

attitudes in human dimensions of natural resource research. In M. J. Manfredo, J. J.

Vaske, B. L. Bruyere, D. R. Field, & P. Brown (Eds.), Society and natural resources: A

summary of knowledge (pp. 271-282). Jefferson City, MO: Modern Litho.

McIntyre, N., Moore, J., & Yuan, M. (2008). A place-based, values-centered approach to

managing recreation on Canadian crown lands. Society & Natural Resources, 21, 657-

670.


62

McLeod, K., & Leslie, H. (2009). Ecosystem-based management for the oceans. Washington,

DC: Island Press.

Murphy, M. (2010). Evaluating potential marine reserves in Oregon: Assessing community

involvement and potential effects to consumptive stakeholders. Unpublished Masters

Thesis, Oregon State University.

Needham, M. D. (2010). Value orientations toward coral reefs in recreation and tourism settings:

A conceptual and measurement approach. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18, 757-772.

Needham, M. D., & Cramer, L. A. (2016). Coastal resident perceptions of marine reserves in

Oregon: Additional analyses. Report for Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

(ODFW). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Department of Forest Ecosystems and

Society; and the Natural Resources, Tourism, and Recreation Studies Lab (NATURE).

Needham, M. D., Cramer, L. A., & Perry, E. E. (2013). Coastal resident perceptions of marine

reserves in Oregon. Final project report for Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

(ODFW). Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, Department of Forest Ecosystems and

Society; and the Natural Resources, Tourism, and Recreation Studies Lab (NATURE).

http://nature.forestry.oregonstate.edu/research-projects-funded

Needham, M. D., & Little, C. M. (2013). Voluntary environmental programs at an alpine ski

area: Visitor perceptions, attachment, value orientations, and specialization. Tourism

Management, 35, 70-81.

Needham, M. D., Haider, W., & Rollins, R. (2016). Protected areas and visitors: Theory,

planning, and management. In P. Dearden, R. Rollins, & M. Needham, Parks and

protected areas in Canada: Planning and management (4th Edition) (pp. 104-140). Don

Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

Needham, M. D., & Szuster, B. W. (2011). Situational influences on normative evaluations of

coastal tourism and recreation management strategies in Hawaii. Tourism Management,

32, 732-740.

Norman, K., Sepez, J., Lazrus, H., Milne, N., Package, C., Russell, S., Grant, K., Lewis, R. P.,

Primo, J., Springer, E., Styles, M., Tilt, B., & Vaccaro, I. (2007). Community profiles for

West Coast and North Pacific fisheries–Washington, Oregon, California, and other US

states. US Dept. Commerce NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-85.

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.


63

Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC) (2008a). Oregon marine reserve policy

guidance. Salem, OR: OPAC.

Oregon Ocean Policy Advisory Council (OPAC) (2008b). Recommendation from OPAC on

marine reserves. Salem, OR.

Oregon Sea Grant (2008). Listening and learning: Marine reserves coastal community forums.

Corvallis, OR: Oregon Sea Grant.

Package, C., & Conway, F. (2010). Long form fishing community profile: Port Orford, Oregon.

Corvallis, OR: Oregon Sea Grant.

Perry, E. E., Needham, M. D., Cramer, L. A., & Rosenberger, R. S. (2014). Coastal resident

knowledge of new marine reserves in Oregon: The impact of proximity and attachment.

Ocean and Coastal Management, 95, 107-116.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Seymour, E., Curtis, A., Pannell, D., Allan, C., & Roberts, A. (2010). Understanding the role of

assigned values in natural resource management. Australasian Journal of Environmental

Management, 17, 142-153.

Steel, B. S., List, P., & Shindler, B. (1994). Conflicting values about federal forests: A

comparison of national and Oregon publics. Society and Natural Resources, 7, 137-153.

Sutton, S. G., & Ditton, R. B. (2001). Understanding catch-and-release behavior among US

Atlantic bluefin tuna anglers. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 6, 49-66.

Teel, T. L., Bright, A. D., Manfredo, M. J., & Brooks, J. J. (2006). Evidence of biased processing

of natural resource related information: A study of attitudes toward drilling for oil in the

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Society and Natural Resources, 19, 447-463.

Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey research and analysis: Applications in parks, recreation and human

dimensions. State College, PA: Venture.

Vaske, J. J., & Donnelly, M. P. (1999). A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildland

voting intentions. Society and Natural Resources, 12, 523-537.

Vaske, J. J., & Manfredo, M. J. (2012). Social psychological considerations in wildlife

management. In D. J. Decker, S. Riley, & W. F. Siemer (Eds.), Human dimensions of

wildlife management (pp. 43-57). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.


64

Vaske, J. J., & Needham, M. D. (2007). Segmenting public beliefs about conflict with coyotes in

an urban recreation setting. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 25(4), 79-98.

Vaske, J. J., Needham, M. D., Stafford, N., Green, K., & Petchenik, J. (2006). Information

sources and knowledge about chronic wasting disease in Colorado and Wisconsin.

Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 11, 191-202.

Wann, D., & Branscombe, N. (1995). Influence of identification with a sports team on objective

knowledge and subjective beliefs. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 551-567.


65

APPENDIX A MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE: PHASE 1 (COASTAL RESIDENTS)

Your Opinions About Marine Areas in Oregon

Important Questions for Oregon Residents

Please Complete this Survey and Return it in the Envelope as Soon as Possible

Participation is Voluntary and Responses are Confidential

Thank You for Your Participation

A Study Conducted by:


66

We are conducting this survey to learn about your opinions regarding marine areas and their management in Oregon. Marine areas are primarily offshore consisting of ocean / sea, not land. Your input is important and will assist resource managers. Please complete this survey and return it in the addressed postage-paid envelope as soon as possible.

1. Please check the activities in which you have ever participated at marine areas in Oregon. (check ALL THAT APPLY)

A. Sightseeing G. Non-charter recreational fishing B. Swimming H. Charter recreational fishing C. Viewing marine animals (e.g., birds, whales, sea lions) I. Commercial fishing D. Exploring tidepools J. Non-motorized boating (e.g., canoe, kayak) E. Surfing / boogie boarding K. Motorized boating F. Scuba diving / snorkeling L. Other (write response) ___________________________

2. From Question 1 above, what ONE activity have you participated in most often at marine areas in Oregon? (write the letter)

Letter for activity ________

3. How much do you believe that each of the following is a threat to marine areas in Oregon? (circle one number for EACH)

No Threat Slight Threat Moderate Threat Extreme Threat Water pollution. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Other types of pollution (e.g., marine trash, debris). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Overfishing. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 People who fish recreationally. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 People who fish commercially. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 People who purchase / consume seafood. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Wildlife viewers getting too close to marine animals. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Loss or disturbance of marine / coastal habitat. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Invasive / exotic species. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Dams. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Naval or other military operations. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Oil / gas exploration or transport. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Wave energy / power development. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Global climate change. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Changes in water temperature. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ocean acidification (lower pH, higher acidity). 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Rise in sea level. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tsunamis. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

4. To what extent do you disagree or agree with each of the following statements? (circle one number for EACH)

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neither AgreeStrongly

Agree The condition of marine areas in Oregon has improved in recent years. 1 2 3 4 5 The government should do more to help protect marine areas in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5 Laws protecting marine areas in Oregon are already too strict. 1 2 3 4 5 Managers are doing everything they can to protect marine areas in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5 Fishing is not harming marine areas in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5 People who fish recreationally are harming marine areas in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5 People who fish commercially are harming marine areas in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5 People who purchase / consume seafood are harming marine areas in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5


67

5. How much influence do you believe each of the following individuals or groups should have in contributing to management of marine areas in Oregon? (circle one number for EACH)

No Influence

Some Influence

Moderate Influence

Strong Influence

People who recreate in marine areas. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 People who fish recreationally. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

People who fish commercially. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 People who live along the Oregon coast. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

People who do not live along the Oregon coast. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Environmental organizations. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

University researchers. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Local port authorities. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Local governments. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tribal authorities / governments. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Oregon Marine Board. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Oregon State Police. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Governor of Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Pacific Fishery Management Council. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

US Coast Guard. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 US Fish and Wildlife Service. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

6. How much trust do you have in each of the following individuals or groups to positively contribute to management of marine areas in Oregon? (circle one number for EACH)

No Trust Some Trust Moderate Trust High Trust

People who recreate in marine areas. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 People who fish recreationally. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

People who fish commercially. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 People who live along the Oregon coast. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

People who do not live along the Oregon coast. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Environmental organizations. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

University researchers. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Local port authorities. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Local governments. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Tribal authorities / governments. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Oregon Marine Board. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Oregon State Police. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Governor of Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Pacific Fishery Management Council. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

US Coast Guard. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 US Fish and Wildlife Service. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


68

Some places around the world have protected certain marine areas by designating them as marine reserves. A marine reserve is an area of the marine environment that is protected from specific uses, especially those that remove or disturb marine life. Around the world, marine reserves have been designated for different purposes such as for research, rebuilding fish populations, protecting habitat, and promoting sightseeing and recreation. Concerns about marine reserves include potential negative impacts to the fishing industry and costs for management and enforcement. The following questions ask about your opinions of marine reserves.

7. Indicate on each of the following scales how you feel about the idea of marine reserves in general. (circle one number for EACH)

Dislike 1 2 3 4 5 Like

Bad 1 2 3 4 5 Good

Negative 1 2 3 4 5 Positive

Harmful 1 2 3 4 5 Beneficial

8. Indicate on each of the following scales how you feel about the idea of establishing marine reserves in Oregon. (circle for EACH)


Bad 1 2 3 4 5 Good



9. What is your opinion regarding the protection or human utilization (use) of marine areas in Oregon? (check ONE)

We should fully utilize marine areas with almost no protection

We should mostly utilize marine areas with just a little protection

We should mostly protect marine areas with just a little utilization

We should fully protect marine areas with almost no utilization

10. If you were to be given an opportunity to vote for or against establishing marine reserves in Oregon, how would you vote? (check ONE)

I would vote for establishing marine reserves in Oregon

I would vote against establishing marine reserves in Oregon

11. How certain are you that you would vote this way? (check ONE)

Not Certain Slightly Certain Moderately Certain Extremely Certain


StronglyDisagree

Disagree Neither Agree Strongly

Agree

Most people who are important to me would want me to support establishing marine reserves in Oregon.

1 2 3 4 5

Doing what most people who are important to me would want me to do matters to me.

1 2 3 4 5

Other people would expect me to oppose establishing marine reserves in Oregon.

1 2 3 4 5

I am usually motivated to do what other people expect me to do. 1 2 3 4 5

The people in my life whose opinions I value the most would want me to favor establishing marine reserves in Oregon.

1 2 3 4 5

Doing what people in my life whose opinions I value the most would want me to do is important to me.

1 2 3 4 5


69

13. To what extent do you disagree or agree that marine reserves in Oregon would cause each of the following outcomes? (circle one number for EACH)

On the Oregon coast, marine reserves would …

StronglyDisagree

Disagree Neither Agree Strongly Agree

… benefit marine areas in general. 1 2 3 4 5 … not be effective in conserving marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5

… protect the diversity of marine species. 1 2 3 4 5 … increase marine species populations. 1 2 3 4 5

… allow depleted marine species populations to recover. 1 2 3 4 5 … cause some species to become overpopulated. 1 2 3 4 5

… improve the economy. 1 2 3 4 5 … increase tourism. 1 2 3 4 5

… benefit people in local communities. 1 2 3 4 5 … prevent people from using the reserve areas. 1 2 3 4 5

… reduce recreational fishing. 1 2 3 4 5 … reduce commercial fishing. 1 2 3 4 5

… improve scientific understanding of marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5 … allow scientists to monitor marine areas over time. 1 2 3 4 5

… improve our understanding of marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5 … be difficult to enforce. 1 2 3 4 5

... cost a lot to manage. 1 2 3 4 5 … improve the ability to manage marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5

14. To what extent do you believe each of the following possible outcomes of marine reserves in Oregon would be bad or good? (circle one number for EACH)

Very Bad

Bad Neither Good Very Good

Benefitting marine areas in general would be… 1 2 3 4 5 Not being effective in conserving marine areas would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Protecting the diversity of marine species would be… 1 2 3 4 5 Increasing marine species populations would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Allowing depleted marine species populations to recover would be… 1 2 3 4 5 Causing some species to become overpopulated would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Improving the economy would be… 1 2 3 4 5 Increasing tourism would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Benefitting people in local communities would be… 1 2 3 4 5 Preventing people from using the reserve areas would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Reducing recreational fishing would be… 1 2 3 4 5 Reducing commercial fishing would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Improving scientific understanding of marine areas would be… 1 2 3 4 5 Allowing scientists to monitor marine areas over time would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Improving our understanding of marine areas would be… 1 2 3 4 5 Difficult enforcement would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Costly management would be… 1 2 3 4 5 Improving the ability to manage marine areas would be… 1 2 3 4 5


70

15. Before receiving this survey, were you familiar with the topic of marine reserves in Oregon? (check ONE) No Yes

16. How well informed do you feel about the topic of marine reserves in Oregon? (check ONE)

Not Informed Slightly Informed Moderately Informed Extremely Informed

17. How knowledgeable do you feel about the topic of marine reserves in Oregon? (check ONE)

Not Knowledgeable Slightly Knowledgeable Moderately Knowledgeable Extremely Knowledgeable

18. Do you believe that each of the following statements related to marine reserves in Oregon is true or false? Circle “U” for “unsure” if you are not sure if the statement is true or false. (circle one letter for EACH)

In Oregon … True False Unsure

… the government has been considering marine reserves for the past several years. T F U

… the government has approved marine reserves for this state. T F U

… commercial fishing would be allowed in all marine reserves. T F U

… all marine reserves would include coastal lands such as beaches and coastlines. T F U

… the government has established five marine reserve sites. T F U

… new developments such as wave energy or fish farms would be allowed in all marine reserves. T F U

… non-extractive recreation / tourism activities (e.g., surfing, swimming, diving) would be allowed in all marine reserves.

T F U

… keeping fish caught in marine reserves would be allowed in all reserves. T F U

… only scientists and no other people would be allowed in all marine reserves. T F U

… there have been opportunities for public involvement in agency discussions about marine reserves. T F U

19. How often have you done each of the following related to marine reserves in Oregon? (circle one number for EACH)

Never Sometimes Often

A. Read newspaper articles about marine reserves in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4

B. Listened to radio news / programs about marine reserves in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4

C. Watched television news / programs about marine reserves in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4

D. Read magazine articles or books about marine reserves in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4

E. Read about marine reserves in Oregon on government agency websites. 0 1 2 3 4

F. Read about marine reserves in Oregon on social websites (e.g., Facebook, Twitter). 0 1 2 3 4

G. Read about marine reserves in Oregon on any other websites. 0 1 2 3 4

H. Read about marine reserves in Oregon fishing regulations brochures. 0 1 2 3 4

I. Discussed marine reserves in Oregon with government agency employees. 0 1 2 3 4

J. Learned about marine reserves in Oregon from environmental or community groups. 0 1 2 3 4

K. Learned about marine reserves in Oregon from work or school. 0 1 2 3 4

L. Discussed marine reserves in Oregon with friends or family members. 0 1 2 3 4

M. Attended meetings or presentations about marine reserves in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4

20. From the list in Question 19 (above), please state the ONE source from which you would prefer to obtain information about marine reserves in Oregon. (write the letter)

Letter for source ________


71

21. What ONE agency or organization do you think is currently responsible for marine reserves in Oregon? (check ONE)

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Oregon Parks and Recreation Department US Fish and Wildlife Service Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife US Coast Guard Oregon Marine Board Pacific Fishery Management Council Unsure

22. How much do you feel that you understand about each of the following? (circle one number for EACH)

Do Not Understand

Slightly Understand

Moderately Understand

Fully Understand

Purpose of marine reserves in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 How marine reserves would be managed in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Rules / regulations of marine reserves in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Where marine reserves are located in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Role of science in marine reserves in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Role of public involvement in marine reserves in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


StronglyDisagree

Disagree Neither Agree StronglyAgree

Commercial fishing should be allowed in marine reserves in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5 Recreational fishing should be allowed in marine reserves in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5 Non-extractive recreation / tourism activities (e.g., surfing, swimming, diving) should be allowed in marine reserves in Oregon.

1 2 3 4 5

Scientific research should be allowed in marine reserves in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5

24. To what extent do you believe that each of the following groups could be impacted by marine reserves in Oregon? (circle one number for EACH)

Strongly Harmed by Reserves

Slightly Harmed by Reserves

Not Impacted by

Reserves

Slightly Benefit from

Reserves

Strongly Benefit from

Reserves People who recreate in marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5 People who fish recreationally. 1 2 3 4 5 People who fish commercially. 1 2 3 4 5 Local businesses. 1 2 3 4 5 People who live along the Oregon coast. 1 2 3 4 5 People who do not live along the Oregon coast. 1 2 3 4 5 Government agencies. 1 2 3 4 5 Scientists / researchers. 1 2 3 4 5


StronglyDisagree

Disagree Neither AgreeStrongly Agree

I intend to support having marine reserves in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5 Managers have done a good job communicating with the public about marine reserves in Oregon.

1 2 3 4 5

I am against establishing marine reserves in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5 It is easy to access / find information about marine reserves in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5 I would likely be in favor of implementing marine reserves in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5


72


73

On the previous page is a map of five marine sites in Oregon. These sites are shown as boxes that are lightly shaded or with lines, and are primarily offshore consisting of ocean / sea, not land. Please answer questions on this page based on these sites.

26. Have you ever visited one or more of the five marine sites identified on the map on the previous page (areas offshore that are lightly shaded or with lines, as shown on the map)? (check ONE)

No if no, skip to question 31 below Yes

27. Which of the five marine sites identified on the map on the previous page have you ever visited (areas offshore that are lightly shaded or with lines, as shown on the map)? (check ALL THAT APPLY)

Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

28. Please check the activities in which you have ever participated at one or more of the five marine sites identified on the map on the previous page (areas offshore that are lightly shaded or with lines, as shown on the map). (check ALL THAT APPLY)

A. Sightseeing G. Non-charter recreational fishing B. Swimming H. Charter recreational fishing C. Viewing marine animals (e.g., birds, whales, sea lions) I. Commercial fishing D. Exploring tidepools J. Non-motorized boating (e.g., canoe, kayak) E. Surfing / boogie boarding K. Motorized boating F. Scuba diving / snorkeling L. Other (write response) ___________________________

29. From Question 28 above, what ONE activity have you participated in most often at one or more of the five marine sites identified on the map on the previous page (areas offshore that are lightly shaded or with lines, as shown on the map)? (write the letter)


30. Thinking about one or more of the five marine sites identified on the map on the previous page (areas offshore that are lightly shaded or with lines shown on the map), do you disagree or agree with each of the following? (circle one number for EACH)

StronglyDisagree


At least one of these marine sites is very special to me. 1 2 3 4 5 At least one of these marine sites is one of the best places for doing what I like to do.

1 2 3 4 5

I am very attached to at least one of these marine sites. 1 2 3 4 5 I would not substitute any other area for doing the types of things that I do in at least one of these marine sites.

1 2 3 4 5

I identify strongly with at least one of these marine sites. 1 2 3 4 5 Doing what I do in at least one of these marine sites is more important to me than doing it in any other place.

1 2 3 4 5

31. If one or more of the five marine sites identified on the map on the previous page (areas offshore that are lightly shaded or with lines, as shown on the map) is designated as a marine reserve, how unlikely or likely would you do each of the following?

Very Unlikely

Unlikely Neither Likely Very

Likely Visit the marine sites(s) more often. 1 2 3 4 5 Visit the marine sites(s) the same amount. 1 2 3 4 5 Visit the marine sites(s) less often. 1 2 3 4 5 Never visit the marine sites(s) again. 1 2 3 4 5 Participate in a different primary activity in the marine sites(s). 1 2 3 4 5 Go to other nearby or adjacent marine areas instead. 1 2 3 4 5 Go to other marine areas on the Oregon coast instead. 1 2 3 4 5


74

32. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is currently responsible for marine reserves in Oregon. To what extent do you disagree or agree with each of the following statements about this agency? (circle one number for EACH)

I feel that the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife …

StronglyDisagree

Slightly Disagree

Neither SlightlyAgree

StronglyAgree

… shares similar values as I do. 1 2 3 4 5 … shares similar opinions as I do. 1 2 3 4 5

… shares similar goals as I do. 1 2 3 4 5 … thinks in a similar way as I do. 1 2 3 4 5 … takes similar actions as I would. 1 2 3 4 5

33. To what extent do you disagree or agree with each of the following statements about this agency? (circle one number for EACH)

I trust the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to …

StronglyDisagree

Slightly Disagree

Neither SlightlyAgree

StronglyAgree

… provide the best available information about marine reserves. 1 2 3 4 5 … provide timely information about marine reserves. 1 2 3 4 5

… provide truthful information about marine reserves. 1 2 3 4 5 … provide me with enough information to decide what actions I should take

regarding marine reserves. 1 2 3 4 5

… manage marine reserves using the best available information about non-human species in these areas (e.g., fish, birds).

1 2 3 4 5

… manage marine reserves using the best available information about human uses of these areas.

1 2 3 4 5

… work with other organizations to inform management of marine reserves. 1 2 3 4 5 … use public input to inform management of marine reserves. 1 2 3 4 5 … make good decisions regarding management of marine reserves. 1 2 3 4 5

34. Both marine reserves and marine protected areas have been proposed for Oregon. These designations are not the same thing. Do you think each of the following activities would be allowed in Oregon’s marine reserves, marine protected areas, both of these types of areas, or neither of these types of areas? Circle “unsure” if you are not sure. (circle one number for EACH)

Marine Reserves

Marine Protected

Areas

Both Marine Reserves and

Protected Areas

Neither Marine Reserves nor

Protected Areas Unsure

Commercial fishing would be allowed in … 1 2 3 4 5 Recreational fishing would be allowed in … 1 2 3 4 5

Scientific research would be allowed in … 1 2 3 4 5 Removing any species or habitat would NOT be allowed in … 1 2 3 4 5

Non-extractive recreation / tourism activities (e.g., surfing, swimming, diving) would be allowed in …

1 2 3 4 5

35. How ecologically healthy do you believe each of the following is in Oregon? (circle one number for EACH)

Not Healthy Slightly Healthy Moderately Healthy Very Healthy

Rivers and streams in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Bays and estuaries in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Marine areas (ocean) in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Marine fish in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Other marine animals in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Wildlife in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Forests in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


75


StronglyDisagree


Agree

I am aware of impacts that humans can have on marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5 My own personal actions can impact marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5

I know that my own behaviors can cause problems in marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5 I feel a personal obligation to help protect marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5

I feel a responsibility to help educate others about protecting marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5 I can do more to help protect marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5


StronglyDisagree


The needs of humans are more important than those of marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5 The primary value of marine areas is to provide benefits for humans. 1 2 3 4 5

Marine areas exist primarily to be used by humans. 1 2 3 4 5 Marine areas should be protected for their own sake rather than to simply meet the needs of humans.

1 2 3 4 5

Marine areas have value whether humans are present or not. 1 2 3 4 5 I would be offended or upset if there were more limits on human use of marine areas.

1 2 3 4 5

Marine areas should have rights similar to the rights of humans. 1 2 3 4 5 I object to fishing, harvesting, or collecting species from marine areas because it violates the rights of these species.

1 2 3 4 5

The economic values that marine areas provide for humans are more important than the rights of species in these marine areas.

1 2 3 4 5

It is important to take care of marine areas for the future. 1 2 3 4 5

It is important that healthy marine areas exist. 1 2 3 4 5 It is important that future generations can enjoy marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5

I enjoy learning about marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5 It is important that people have a chance to learn about marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5

It is important that we learn as much as we can about marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5 I do not enjoy going to marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5

Some of my most memorable experiences occurred in marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5 Visiting marine areas is one of the reasons I take trips outdoors. 1 2 3 4 5


StronglyDisagree


Agree

Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. 1 2 3 4 5 Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature. 1 2 3 4 5

The so-called ecological crisis facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated. 1 2 3 4 5 The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them. 1 2 3 4 5

The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. 1 2 3 4 5 When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences. 1 2 3 4 5

Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist. 1 2 3 4 5 Humans are severely abusing the environment. 1 2 3 4 5


76

39. Below are three separate groups of goals that people might prioritize differently. For EACH group, please RANK the four goals in order of importance to YOU (NO TIES). That is:

1 = the goal that is most important to YOU 3 = the 3rd most important goal 2 = the 2nd most important goal 4 = the least important goal

Group 1. Rank these four goals from 1= most important to 4 = least important. NO TIES (DO NOT GIVE ANY OF THESE FOUR ITEMS THE SAME RANK). Rank

Maintain a high level of economic growth. _______

See that people have more to say about how things are done at their jobs and in their communities. _______

Make sure this country has strong defense forces. _______

Try to make our cities and countryside more beautiful. _______

Group 2. Now repeat for this next set of four goals (1= most important, 4 = least important). NO TIES (DO NOT GIVE ANY OF THESE FOUR ITEMS THE SAME RANK). Rank

Maintain order in the nation. _______

Give people more to say in important government decisions. _______

Fight rising prices. _______

Protect freedom of speech. _______

Group 3. Now repeat again for this final set of four goals (1 = most important, 4 = least important). NO TIES (DO NOT GIVE ANY OF THESE FOUR ITEMS THE SAME RANK). Rank

Maintain a stable economy. _______

Progress toward a less impersonal and more humane society. _______

Fight crime. _______

Progress toward a society in which ideas count more than money. _______

40. Are you: (check ONE) Male Female

41. What is your age? (write age) ________ years old

42. Approximately how many years have you lived in Oregon? (write the number) __________ year(s)

43. Approximately how many years have you lived on the Oregon coast? (write the number) __________ year(s)

44. Do you own or rent / lease the residence where you currently live? (check ONE) Own Rent / Lease Other

45. Approximately how many years have you lived at this current address? (write the number) __________ year(s)

46. Are you or anyone else in your household employed in the commercial fishing industry? (check ONE) No Yes

47. Are you a member of any environmental or marine related organizations (e.g., Sierra Club, Ducks Unlimited)? (check ONE)

No

Yes if yes, what organization(s) are you a member of? (write response) ______________________________________

48. What is the highest level of education that you have achieved? (check ONE)

Less than high school diploma 4-year college degree (e.g., bachelors degree)

High school diploma or GED Advanced degree beyond 4-year degree

2-year associates degree or trade school (e.g., masters, Ph.D., medical doctor, law degree)

THANK YOU! PLEASE RETURN THIS COMPLETED SURVEY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IN THE ENCLOSED ADDRESSED AND POSTAGE-PAID ENVELOPE


77

APPENDIX B MAIL QUESTIONNAIRE: PHASE 2 (I-5 CORRIDOR RESIDENTS)








78

We are conducting this survey to learn about your opinions regarding marine areas and their management in Oregon. Marine areas are primarily offshore consisting of ocean / sea, but not land. Your input is important and will assist managers. Please complete this survey and return it in the addressed postage-paid envelope as soon as possible.

1. Have you ever visited marine areas in Oregon? (check ONE)

Yes No if no, skip to question 4 below


A. Sightseeing G. Non-charter recreational fishing B. Swimming H. Charter recreational fishing C. Viewing marine animals (e.g., birds, whales, sea lions) I. Commercial fishing D. Exploring tidepools J. Non-motorized boating (e.g., canoe, kayak) E. Surfing / boogie boarding K. Motorized boating F. Scuba diving / snorkeling L. Other (write response) __________________________




Strongly Disagree


Agree The condition of marine areas in Oregon has improved in recent years. 1 2 3 4 5 The government should do more to help protect marine areas in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5 Laws protecting marine areas in Oregon are already too strict. 1 2 3 4 5 Managers are doing everything they can to protect marine areas in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5 Fishing is not harming marine areas in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5 People who fish recreationally are harming marine areas in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5 People who fish commercially are harming marine areas in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5 People who purchase / consume seafood are harming marine areas in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5


No Influence

Some Influence

Moderate Influence

Strong Influence

People who recreate in marine areas. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 People who fish recreationally. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 People who fish commercially. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 People who live along the Oregon coast. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 People who do not live along the Oregon coast. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Environmental organizations. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 University researchers. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Local governments. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 US Fish and Wildlife Service. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


79


No Trust Some Trust Moderate Trust High Trust People who recreate in marine areas. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 People who fish recreationally. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 People who fish commercially. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 People who live along the Oregon coast. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 People who do not live along the Oregon coast. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Environmental organizations. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 University researchers. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Local governments. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 US Fish and Wildlife Service. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

7. What words or short phrases would you associate with the phrase “marine protected area?” (write up to three responses)

_______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________

8. What words or short phrases would you associate with the phrase “marine reserve?” (write up to three responses)

_______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________

Some places around the world have protected certain marine areas by designating them as marine reserves. A marine reserve is an area of the marine environment that is protected from specific uses, especially those that remove or disturb marine life. Around the world, marine reserves have been designated for different purposes such as for research, rebuilding fish populations, protecting habitat, and promoting sightseeing and recreation. Concerns about marine reserves include potential negative impacts to the fishing industry and costs for management and enforcement. The following questions ask your opinions of marine reserves.



Bad 1 2 3 4 5 Good





Bad 1 2 3 4 5 Good




I would vote for establishing marine reserves in Oregon

I would vote against establishing marine reserves in Oregon


Not Certain Slightly Certain Moderately Certain Extremely Certain


80



StronglyDisagree


… benefit marine areas in general. 1 2 3 4 5

… not be effective in conserving marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5

… protect the diversity of marine species. 1 2 3 4 5

… increase marine species populations. 1 2 3 4 5

… allow depleted marine species populations to recover. 1 2 3 4 5

… cause some species to become overpopulated. 1 2 3 4 5

… improve the economy. 1 2 3 4 5

… increase tourism. 1 2 3 4 5

… benefit people in local communities. 1 2 3 4 5

… prevent people from using the reserve areas. 1 2 3 4 5

… reduce recreational fishing. 1 2 3 4 5

… reduce commercial fishing. 1 2 3 4 5

… improve scientific understanding of marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5

… allow scientists to monitor marine areas over time. 1 2 3 4 5

… improve our understanding of marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5

… be difficult to enforce. 1 2 3 4 5

... cost a lot to manage. 1 2 3 4 5

… improve the ability to manage marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5


Very Bad


Benefitting marine areas in general would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Not being effective in conserving marine areas would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Protecting the diversity of marine species would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Increasing marine species populations would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Allowing depleted marine species populations to recover would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Causing some species to become overpopulated would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Improving the economy would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Increasing tourism would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Benefitting people in local communities would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Preventing people from using the reserve areas would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Reducing recreational fishing would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Reducing commercial fishing would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Improving scientific understanding of marine areas would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Allowing scientists to monitor marine areas over time would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Improving our understanding of marine areas would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Difficult enforcement would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Costly management would be… 1 2 3 4 5

Improving the ability to manage marine areas would be… 1 2 3 4 5


81

15. Before receiving this survey, were you familiar with the topic of marine reserves in Oregon? (check ONE) No Yes


Not Informed Slightly Informed Moderately Informed Extremely Informed


Not Knowledgeable Slightly Knowledgeable Moderately Knowledgeable Extremely Knowledgeable



… the government has been considering marine reserves for the past several years. T F U

… the government has approved marine reserves for this state. T F U

… commercial fishing would be allowed in all marine reserves. T F U

… all marine reserves would include coastal lands such as beaches and coastlines. T F U

… the government has established five marine reserve sites. T F U

… new developments such as wave energy or fish farms would be allowed in all marine reserves. T F U


T F U

… keeping fish caught in marine reserves would be allowed in all reserves. T F U

… only scientists and no other people would be allowed in all marine reserves. T F U

… there have been opportunities for public involvement in agency discussions about marine reserves. T F U



A. Read newspaper articles about marine reserves in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4













20. From the list in Question 19 (above), please choose the ONE source from which you would prefer to obtain information about marine reserves in Oregon. (write the letter)

Letter for source ________


82


National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Oregon Parks and Recreation Department US Fish and Wildlife Service Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife US Coast Guard Oregon Marine Board Pacific Fishery Management Council Unsure


Do Not Understand

Slightly Understand


Fully Understand

Purpose of marine reserves in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 How marine reserves would be managed in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Rules / regulations of marine reserves in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Where marine reserves are located in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Role of science in marine reserves in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Role of public involvement in marine reserves in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


StronglyDisagree


Commercial fishing should be allowed in marine reserves in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5 Recreational fishing should be allowed in marine reserves in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5 Non-extractive recreation / tourism activities (e.g., surfing, swimming, diving) should be allowed in marine reserves in Oregon.

1 2 3 4 5





Not Impacted by

Reserves


Reserves


Reserves People who recreate in marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5 People who fish recreationally. 1 2 3 4 5 People who fish commercially. 1 2 3 4 5 Local businesses. 1 2 3 4 5 People who live along the Oregon coast. 1 2 3 4 5 People who do not live along the Oregon coast. 1 2 3 4 5 Government agencies. 1 2 3 4 5 Scientists / researchers. 1 2 3 4 5


StronglyDisagree


I intend to support having marine reserves in Oregon. 1 2 3 4 5 Managers have done a good job communicating with the public about marine reserves in Oregon.

1 2 3 4 5



83

26. How important is it to you that each of the following be provided by Oregon’s marine reserves? (circle one number for EACH)

Not Important

Slightly Important

Moderately Important

Extremely Important

I do not know

A. Provide recreation opportunities. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

B. Provide spiritual inspiration. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

C. Provide opportunities to maintain or regain physical or mental health through contact with nature.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

D. Provide a place of minimal human impact or intrusion into the natural environment.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

E. Just knowing that marine reserves exist. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

F. Protect species to be used by the fishing industry in the future.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

G. Protect other natural resources that humans may have to use in the future.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

H. Knowing that I will have the ability to visit marine reserves in the future.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

I. Provide income for the tourism industry. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

J. Foster a moral or ethical obligation to respect or protect nature or other living things.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

K. Knowing that future generations will have marine reserves.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

L. Protect air quality. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

M. Protect nature to ensure human well-being or survival. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

N. Protect symbols of America’s heritage or culture. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

O. Protect water quality. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

P. Protect endangered species. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Q. Preserve natural areas for scientific discovery or study. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

R. Protect places that provide a sense of place, community, or belonging.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

S. Protect endangered places. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

T. Preserve unique wild plants or animals. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

U. Protect marine species, water, or plants that have value even if humans do not benefit from them.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

V. Protect habitat for marine species. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

W. Provide scenic beauty. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

27. From the list in Question 26 (above), please choose up to three that you think are most important for Oregon’s marine reserves to provide. (write up to three letters from the question above)

Letter(s) ________ ________ ________


We should fully utilize marine areas with almost no protection

We should mostly utilize marine areas with just a little protection

We should mostly protect marine areas with just a little utilization

We should fully protect marine areas with almost no utilization


84


85

On the previous page is a map of five marine sites in Oregon. These sites are shown as boxes that are lightly shaded or with lines, and are primarily offshore consisting of ocean / sea, but NOT LAND. Answer the next few questions based on these sites.


No if no, skip to question 31 below Yes if yes, how many trips have you made to the site(s) in the past 12 months? (write number) ________ trip(s)


Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Site 4 Site 5

31. If one or more of the five marine sites identified on the map on the previous page (areas offshore that are lightly shaded or with lines, as shown on the map) was designated as a marine reserve, what would you want to do? (circle one number)

1 2 3 4 5

I would want to visit the marine site(s) less often

I would want to visit the marine site(s) the same amount

I would want to visit themarine site(s) more often

32. What words or short phrases would you associate with the word “wilderness?” (write up to three responses)

_______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________

33. What words or short phrases would you associate with the phrase “marine wilderness?” (write up to three responses)

_______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________

Although Oregon’s marine reserves are not officially designated as “wilderness,” some people believe wilderness exists on not only land, but also in the ocean. However, other people believe wilderness only exists on land and does not include the ocean. Wilderness has many possible definitions, but for the purposes of the rest of this survey, it can generally be considered as places where natural processes dominate and intentional human modification of the environment is minimal. The next few questions ask about what you think of the term “wilderness” and what areas of the world you consider to be wilderness.

34. If one or more of the five marine sites identified on the map on the previous page (areas offshore that are lightly shaded or with lines, as shown on the map) was designated as wilderness, what would you want to do? (circle one number)

1 2 3 4 5





I believe…

Strongly Disagree


Agree …there are areas of the ocean in the world that could be called wilderness. 1 2 3 4 5 …there are areas of the ocean along Oregon’s coast that could be called wilderness.

1 2 3 4 5

…Oregon’s marine reserves could be called wilderness. 1 2 3 4 5

36. How would your opinion change if Oregon’s marine reserves were designated as wilderness? (circle one number)

1 2 3 4 5

My opinion of Oregon’s marine reserves would be more negative if they were designated as wilderness


My opinion of Oregon’s marinereserves would be more positive

if they were designated as wilderness


86

37. What would you think if Oregon’s marine reserves were designated as wilderness? (circle one number)

1 2 3 4 5

I would like Oregon’s marine reserves less if they were designated as wilderness


I would like Oregon’s marine reserves more if they were

designated as wilderness

38. If designating Oregon’s marine reserves as wilderness would change your opinion about these reserve areas, how would your opinion change? (write response) __________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

39. To what extent do you think Oregon’s marine reserves should or should not be designated as wilderness? (circle one number)

1 2 3 4 5

Oregon’s marine reserves should not be designated as wilderness

Neither Oregon’s marine reserves shouldbe designated as wilderness

40. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is currently responsible for marine reserves in Oregon. To what extent do you disagree or agree with each of the following statements about this agency? (circle a number for EACH)


StronglyDisagree


Agree

… provide the best available information about marine reserves. 1 2 3 4 5

… provide timely information about marine reserves. 1 2 3 4 5

… provide truthful information about marine reserves. 1 2 3 4 5

… provide me with enough information to decide what actions I should take regarding marine reserves.

1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

… work with other organizations to inform management of marine reserves. 1 2 3 4 5

… use public input to inform management of marine reserves. 1 2 3 4 5

… make good decisions regarding management of marine reserves. 1 2 3 4 5


StronglyDisagree


The needs of humans are more important than those of marine areas. 1 2 3 4 5

The primary value of marine areas is to provide benefits for humans. 1 2 3 4 5

Marine areas exist primarily to be used by humans. 1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

Marine areas should be protected for their own sake rather than to simply meet the needs of humans.

1 2 3 4 5

Marine areas have value whether humans are present or not. 1 2 3 4 5

Marine areas should have rights similar to the rights of humans. 1 2 3 4 5

I object to fishing, harvesting, or collecting species from marine areas because it violates the rights of these species.

1 2 3 4 5


87

Most of this survey has been about marine areas, but now we are going to ask a few questions about wilderness areas on land.

42. How important is it to you that each of the following be provided by wilderness areas on land? (circle one number for EACH)

Not Important

Slightly Important


Extremely Important

I do not know

A. Provide recreation opportunities. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

B. Provide spiritual inspiration. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

E. Just knowing that wilderness areas on land exist. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

F. Protect species to be used by industry in the future. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

H. Knowing that I will have the ability to visit wilderness areas on land in the future.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

I. Provide income for the tourism industry. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

K. Knowing that future generations will have wilderness areas on land.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

L. Protect air quality. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

M. Protect nature to ensure human well-being or survival. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

N. Protect symbols of America’s heritage or culture. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

O. Protect water quality. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

P. Protect endangered species. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Q. Preserve natural areas for scientific discovery or study. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

S. Protect endangered places. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

T. Preserve unique wild plants or animals. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

U. Protect wildlife, water, or plants that have value even if humans do not benefit from them.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

V. Protect habitat for wildlife. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

W. Provide scenic beauty. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

43. From the list in Question 42 (above), please choose up to three that you think are most important for wilderness areas on land to provide. (write up to three letters from the question above)

Letter(s) ________ ________ ________


I believe…

Strongly Disagree


Agree

…there are areas of land in the world that could be called wilderness. 1 2 3 4 5 …there are protected areas of land in Oregon that could be called wilderness. 1 2 3 4 5 …there are other areas of land in Oregon that could be called wilderness. 1 2 3 4 5


88


Not Healthy Slightly Healthy Moderately Healthy Very Healthy Rivers and streams in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Bays and estuaries in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Marine areas (ocean) in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Marine fish in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Other marine animals in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Wildlife in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Forests in Oregon. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8


StronglyDisagree


Agree Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. 1 2 3 4 5 Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature. 1 2 3 4 5 The so-called ecological crisis facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated. 1 2 3 4 5 The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them. 1 2 3 4 5 The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. 1 2 3 4 5 When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences. 1 2 3 4 5 Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist. 1 2 3 4 5 Humans are severely abusing the environment. 1 2 3 4 5

47. Are you: (check ONE) Male Female Other (e.g., Transgender Person)

48. What is your age? (write age) ________ years old

49. Approximately how many years have you lived in Oregon? (write the number) __________ year(s)

50. Approximately how many years have you lived at this current address? (write the number) __________ year(s)

51. How would you describe the community where you live? (check ONE)

Large city (250,000 or more people) Small city (25,000 to 99,999 people) Small town (less than 5,000 people)

City (100,000 to 249,999 people) Town (5,000 to 24,999 people) Farm or rural area with few people

52. Do you own a second home on the Oregon coast? (check ONE)

No Yes if yes, what is the main purpose of this second home? (check ONE)

Retirement Property investment Recreation Other (write response) _____________

53. Are you or anyone else in your household employed in the commercial fishing industry? (check ONE) No Yes

54. In general, do you consider your political orientation to be: (check ONE)

Very Conservative Somewhat Conservative Moderate Somewhat Liberal Very Liberal


Less than high school diploma 4-year college degree (e.g., bachelors degree)

High school diploma or GED Advanced degree beyond 4-year degree

2-year associates degree or trade school (e.g., masters, Ph.D., medical doctor, law degree)

56. Where do you live? (write responses) City / town _______________ County _______________ Zipcode _______________

THANK YOU! PLEASE RETURN THIS SURVEY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IN THE ENVELOPE PROVIDED


89

APPENDIX C UNCOLLAPSED TOTAL PERCENTAGES:

PHASE 2 (I-5 CORRIDOR RESIDENTS)








90

We are conducting this survey to learn about your opinions regarding marine areas and their management in Oregon. Marine areas are primarily offshore consisting of ocean / sea, but not land. Your input is important and will assist managers. Please complete this survey and return it in the addressed postage-paid envelope as soon as possible.

1. Have you ever visited marine areas in Oregon? (check ONE)

88% Yes 12% No if no, skip to question 4 below


89% A. Sightseeing 32% G. Non-charter recreational fishing 36% B. Swimming 23% H. Charter recreational fishing 80% C. Viewing marine animals (e.g., birds, whales, sea lions) 2% I. Commercial fishing 76% D. Exploring tidepools 21% J. Non-motorized boating (e.g., canoe, kayak) 13% E. Surfing / boogie boarding 26% K. Motorized boating 6% F. Scuba diving / snorkeling 9% L. Other (write response) see report


Letter for activity see report


Strongly Disagree


Agree The condition of marine areas in Oregon has improved in recent years. 1% 11% 56% 26% 5% The government should do more to help protect marine areas in Oregon. 1 5 25 41 28 Laws protecting marine areas in Oregon are already too strict. 15 33 44 7 1 Managers are doing everything they can to protect marine areas in Oregon. 4 19 56 18 3 Fishing is not harming marine areas in Oregon. 7 29 37 21 6 People who fish recreationally are harming marine areas in Oregon. 12 37 37 13 2 People who fish commercially are harming marine areas in Oregon. 3 16 42 32 7 People who purchase / consume seafood are harming marine areas in Oregon. 15 33 35 13 4


No Influence

Some Influence

Moderate Influence

Strong Influence

People who recreate in marine areas. 1% 2% 14% 19% 16% 26% 11% 5% 6% People who fish recreationally. 1 3 12 18 16 25 15 5 4 People who fish commercially. 2 3 11 16 12 24 19 9 5 People who live along the Oregon coast. 1 1 7 12 18 20 21 14 8 People who do not live along the Oregon coast. 5 8 22 21 20 15 5 3 1 Environmental organizations. 4 2 9 11 14 21 15 16 8 University researchers. 2 1 4 6 13 19 20 21 14 Local governments. 1 2 8 10 13 25 23 9 9 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 0 0 3 2 9 13 23 28 21 Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. 1 1 5 4 14 18 19 23 16 US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1 1 5 5 10 16 21 22 19 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2 1 4 6 10 13 15 27 23


91


No Trust Some Trust Moderate Trust High Trust People who recreate in marine areas. 6% 7% 19% 23% 16% 16% 7% 4% 2% People who fish recreationally. 3 7 16 23 16 17 11 5 2 People who fish commercially. 8 12 20 16 14 16 9 3 1 People who live along the Oregon coast. 1 2 10 16 26 17 15 10 3 People who do not live along the Oregon coast. 12 13 18 26 18 9 2 1 1 Environmental organizations. 7 3 9 13 13 16 15 18 8 University researchers. 1 1 3 7 9 18 21 24 15 Local governments. 3 3 12 16 17 24 19 7 1 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1 2 4 6 10 19 24 19 15 Oregon Parks and Recreation Department. 1 1 6 8 13 22 20 18 13 US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2 2 4 11 10 16 21 21 14 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2 1 5 9 10 13 17 24 20

7. What words or short phrases would you associate with the phrase “marine protected area?” (write up to three responses)

see J. Johnston thesis (2017)

8. What words or short phrases would you associate with the phrase “marine reserve?” (write up to three responses)


Some places around the world have protected certain marine areas by designating them as marine reserves. A marine reserve is an area of the marine environment that is protected from specific uses, especially those that remove or disturb marine life. Around the world, marine reserves have been designated for different purposes such as for research, rebuilding fish populations, protecting habitat, and promoting sightseeing and recreation. Concerns about marine reserves include potential negative impacts to the fishing industry and costs for management and enforcement. The following questions ask your opinions of marine reserves.


Dislike 2% 3% 16% 21% 57% Like

Bad 1 4 11 27 57 Good




Dislike 3% 4% 14% 20% 59% Like

Bad 1 5 12 27 55 Good




90% I would vote for establishing marine reserves in Oregon

10% I would vote against establishing marine reserves in Oregon


4% Not Certain 8% Slightly Certain 40% Moderately Certain 49% Extremely Certain


92



StronglyDisagree


… benefit marine areas in general. 1% 1% 13% 49% 36%

… not be effective in conserving marine areas. 23 52 18 5 2

… protect the diversity of marine species. 1 3 12 56 30

… increase marine species populations. 1 2 18 55 25

… allow depleted marine species populations to recover. 1 2 12 55 32

… cause some species to become overpopulated. 3 25 40 27 4

… improve the economy. 6 18 49 20 7

… increase tourism. 4 12 29 42 12

… benefit people in local communities. 4 11 37 40 9

… prevent people from using the reserve areas. 3 21 33 33 11

… reduce recreational fishing. 3 15 32 42 8

… reduce commercial fishing. 2 11 27 43 17

… improve scientific understanding of marine areas. 1 2 13 44 41

… allow scientists to monitor marine areas over time. 0 1 8 41 50

… improve our understanding of marine areas. 1 1 14 42 43

… be difficult to enforce. 3 14 33 40 9

... cost a lot to manage. 1 15 38 37 9

… improve the ability to manage marine areas. 2 3 28 50 17


Very Bad


Benefitting marine areas in general would be… 0% 1% 8% 44% 48%

Not being effective in conserving marine areas would be… 34 49 14 2 0

Protecting the diversity of marine species would be… 1 1 4 43 52

Increasing marine species populations would be… 0 1 18 42 40

Allowing depleted marine species populations to recover would be… 0 1 3 39 58

Causing some species to become overpopulated would be… 10 57 30 2 1

Improving the economy would be… 0 1 16 47 36

Increasing tourism would be… 1 4 24 51 21

Benefitting people in local communities would be… 0 1 8 53 38

Preventing people from using the reserve areas would be… 7 32 39 20 4

Reducing recreational fishing would be… 8 32 45 12 3

Reducing commercial fishing would be… 4 25 36 24 11

Improving scientific understanding of marine areas would be… 0 0 7 40 54

Allowing scientists to monitor marine areas over time would be… 0 1 7 37 55

Improving our understanding of marine areas would be… 0 0 6 37 57

Difficult enforcement would be… 12 47 36 4 2

Costly management would be… 14 52 31 3 1

Improving the ability to manage marine areas would be… 1 1 15 51 33


93

15. Before receiving this survey, were you familiar with the topic of marine reserves in Oregon? (check ONE) 65% No 35% Yes


31% Not Informed 45% Slightly Informed 23% Moderately Informed 1% Extremely Informed


36% Not Knowledgeable 43% Slightly Knowledgeable 20% Moderately Knowledgeable 1% Extremely Knowledgeable



… the government has been considering marine reserves for the past several years. 47% 0% 53%

… the government has approved marine reserves for this state. 30 5 65

… commercial fishing would be allowed in all marine reserves. 2 50 47

… all marine reserves would include coastal lands such as beaches and coastlines. 19 29 51

… the government has established five marine reserve sites. 13 3 84

… new developments such as wave energy or fish farms would be allowed in all marine reserves. 8 25 67


24 22 55

… keeping fish caught in marine reserves would be allowed in all reserves. 3 44 53

… only scientists and no other people would be allowed in all marine reserves. 7 52 41

… there have been opportunities for public involvement in agency discussions about marine reserves. 43 3 54



A. Read newspaper articles about marine reserves in Oregon. 51% 22% 19% 6% 2%













20. From the list in Question 19 (above), please choose the ONE source from which you would prefer to obtain information about marine reserves in Oregon. (write the letter)

Letter for source see report


94


6% National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2% Oregon Parks and Recreation Department 11% US Fish and Wildlife Service 47% Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 0% US Coast Guard 5% Oregon Marine Board 1% Pacific Fishery Management Council 30% Unsure


Do Not Understand

Slightly Understand


Fully Understand

Purpose of marine reserves in Oregon. 10% 7% 17% 17% 12% 23% 10% 4% 2% How marine reserves would be managed in Oregon. 23 25 23 15 7 4 3 1 0 Rules / regulations of marine reserves in Oregon. 28 21 22 12 8 7 2 1 0 Where marine reserves are located in Oregon. 33 22 20 9 5 8 2 1 2 Role of science in marine reserves in Oregon. 16 10 20 15 13 12 8 4 3 Role of public involvement in marine reserves in Oregon. 25 18 17 15 14 7 3 1 0


StronglyDisagree


Commercial fishing should be allowed in marine reserves in Oregon. 34% 31% 27% 7% 2% Recreational fishing should be allowed in marine reserves in Oregon. 14 26 33 22 5 Non-extractive recreation / tourism activities (e.g., surfing, swimming, diving) should be allowed in marine reserves in Oregon.

6 14 28 43 9





Not Impacted by

Reserves


Reserves


Reserves People who recreate in marine areas. 4% 32% 27% 27% 11% People who fish recreationally. 10 47 20 16 7 People who fish commercially. 32 45 9 9 5 Local businesses. 6 21 35 30 7 People who live along the Oregon coast. 5 14 24 43 15 People who do not live along the Oregon coast. 2 8 56 26 10 Government agencies. 1 7 36 41 16 Scientists / researchers. 0 2 8 30 60


StronglyDisagree


I intend to support having marine reserves in Oregon. 2% 5% 17% 46% 30% Managers have done a good job communicating with the public about marine reserves in Oregon.

18 38 37 7 1



95

26. How important is it to you that each of the following be provided by Oregon’s marine reserves? (circle one number for EACH)

Not Important

Slightly Important


Extremely Important

I do not know

A. Provide recreation opportunities. 6% 5% 8% 7% 10% 19% 18% 14% 9% 3%

B. Provide spiritual inspiration. 21 11 8 11 7 12 10 8 5 6


8 5 7 8 11 21 10 15 11 5


4 3 4 6 9 13 18 19 21 4

E. Just knowing that marine reserves exist. 10 3 5 6 7 16 19 14 16 5

F. Protect species to be used by the fishing industry in the future.

5 1 3 5 9 17 16 22 18 5


4 1 2 5 7 12 18 28 21 4

H. Knowing that I will have the ability to visit marine reserves in the future.

6 2 4 5 7 15 18 26 15 4

I. Provide income for the tourism industry. 6 3 12 11 13 16 15 12 6 5


6 2 2 2 5 11 13 27 30 3

K. Knowing that future generations will have marine reserves.

6 2 2 3 4 10 11 29 31 3

L. Protect air quality. 6 2 2 3 4 7 12 24 36 5

M. Protect nature to ensure human well-being or survival. 6 2 3 3 6 10 13 25 29 4

N. Protect symbols of America’s heritage or culture. 8 3 6 7 9 11 14 20 18 4

O. Protect water quality. 1 0 3 4 3 5 10 25 46 4

P. Protect endangered species. 3 0 3 2 3 4 12 28 44 3

Q. Preserve natural areas for scientific discovery or study. 1 0 3 3 8 7 14 31 30 3


7 2 4 5 13 14 15 19 17 4

S. Protect endangered places. 3 0 3 2 3 5 16 28 37 3

T. Preserve unique wild plants or animals. 2 1 1 2 4 5 13 30 40 3

U. Protect marine species, water, or plants that have value even if humans do not benefit from them.

2 1 1 5 4 6 14 29 36 4

V. Protect habitat for marine species. 2 0 1 4 3 5 11 32 38 3

W. Provide scenic beauty. 3 2 5 5 6 12 16 24 24 3

27. From the list in Question 26 (above), please choose up to three that you think are most important for Oregon’s marine reserves to provide. (write up to three letters from the question above)

Letter(s) see report


1% We should fully utilize marine areas with almost no protection

18% We should mostly utilize marine areas with just a little protection

70% We should mostly protect marine areas with just a little utilization

12% We should fully protect marine areas with almost no utilization


96


97

On the previous page is a map of five marine sites in Oregon. These sites are shown as boxes that are lightly shaded or with lines, and are primarily offshore consisting of ocean / sea, but NOT LAND. Answer the next few questions based on these sites.


40% No if no, skip to question 31 below 60% Yes if yes, how many trips have you made to the site(s) in the past 12 months? (write number) see report trip(s)


23% Site 1 39% Site 2 42% Site 3 26% Site 4 10% Site 5

31. If one or more of the five marine sites identified on the map on the previous page (areas offshore that are lightly shaded or with lines, as shown on the map) was designated as a marine reserve, what would you want to do? (circle one number)

6% 5% 67% 18% 5%




32. What words or short phrases would you associate with the word “wilderness?” (write up to three responses)


33. What words or short phrases would you associate with the phrase “marine wilderness?” (write up to three responses)


Although Oregon’s marine reserves are not officially designated as “wilderness,” some people believe wilderness exists on not only land, but also in the ocean. However, other people believe wilderness only exists on land and does not include the ocean. Wilderness has many possible definitions, but for the purposes of the rest of this survey, it can generally be considered as places where natural processes dominate and intentional human modification of the environment is minimal. The next few questions ask about what you think of the term “wilderness” and what areas of the world you consider to be wilderness.

34. If one or more of the five marine sites identified on the map on the previous page (areas offshore that are lightly shaded or with lines, as shown on the map) was designated as wilderness, what would you want to do? (circle one number)

9% 7% 64% 17% 4%





I believe…

Strongly Disagree


Agree …there are areas of the ocean in the world that could be called wilderness. 3% 3% 14% 42% 38% …there are areas of the ocean along Oregon’s coast that could be called wilderness.

3 7 18 43 29

…Oregon’s marine reserves could be called wilderness. 5 11 25 38 22

36. How would your opinion change if Oregon’s marine reserves were designated as wilderness? (circle one number)

4% 7% 61% 17% 11%

My opinion of Oregon’s marine reserves would be more negative if they were designated as wilderness


My opinion of Oregon’s marinereserves would be more positive

if they were designated as wilderness


98

37. What would you think if Oregon’s marine reserves were designated as wilderness? (circle one number)

5% 5% 63% 19% 9%

I would like Oregon’s marine reserves less if they were designated as wilderness


I would like Oregon’s marine reserves more if they were

designated as wilderness

38. If designating Oregon’s marine reserves as wilderness would change your opinion about these reserve areas, how would your opinion change? (write response)


39. To what extent do you think Oregon’s marine reserves should or should not be designated as wilderness? (circle one number)

8% 8% 43% 30% 11%

Oregon’s marine reserves should not be designated as wilderness

Neither Oregon’s marine reserves shouldbe designated as wilderness

40. The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is currently responsible for marine reserves in Oregon. To what extent do you disagree or agree with each of the following statements about this agency? (circle a number for EACH)


StronglyDisagree


Agree

… provide the best available information about marine reserves. 2% 10% 25% 50% 12%

… provide timely information about marine reserves. 2 13 28 49 8

… provide truthful information about marine reserves. 2 8 22 55 13

… provide me with enough information to decide what actions I should take regarding marine reserves.

3 11 26 49 11


2 7 24 52 15


2 9 24 51 15

… work with other organizations to inform management of marine reserves. 2 7 31 48 12

… use public input to inform management of marine reserves. 4 11 35 41 10

… make good decisions regarding management of marine reserves. 3 8 25 48 16


StronglyDisagree


The needs of humans are more important than those of marine areas. 23% 43% 24% 9% 2%

The primary value of marine areas is to provide benefits for humans. 28 40 17 12 3

Marine areas exist primarily to be used by humans. 34 42 19 5 1


39 38 18 4 1

Marine areas should be protected for their own sake rather than to simply meet the needs of humans.

1 7 13 42 37

Marine areas have value whether humans are present or not. 0 2 7 42 49

Marine areas should have rights similar to the rights of humans. 8 17 31 29 14

I object to fishing, harvesting, or collecting species from marine areas because it violates the rights of these species.

19 33 29 13 6


99

Most of this survey has been about marine areas, but now we are going to ask a few questions about wilderness areas on land.

42. How important is it to you that each of the following be provided by wilderness areas on land? (circle one number for EACH)

Not Important

Slightly Important


Extremely Important

I do not know

A. Provide recreation opportunities. 2% 4% 5% 7% 9% 25% 17% 17% 11% 2% B. Provide spiritual inspiration. 17 8 5 11 11 13 8 14 9 5


7 3 5 7 11 18 14 21 14 3


1 2 2 4 6 15 17 27 25 2

E. Just knowing that wilderness areas on land exist. 4 2 4 4 8 12 14 26 25 2 F. Protect species to be used by industry in the future. 2 9 9 5 15 15 14 15 12 5


3 2 5 8 15 16 16 22 12 3

H. Knowing that I will have the ability to visit wilderness areas on land in the future.

3 1 2 3 8 13 14 31 25 2

I. Provide income for the tourism industry. 7 8 8 14 15 19 14 10 4 2 J. Foster a moral or ethical obligation to respect or

protect nature or other living things. 4 2 2 2 6 10 14 27 30 3

K. Knowing that future generations will have wilderness areas on land.

1 1 1 2 3 10 12 31 38 2

L. Protect air quality. 1 1 2 2 3 7 13 24 46 2

M. Protect nature to ensure human well-being or survival. 2 1 4 5 5 14 16 24 27 2 N. Protect symbols of America’s heritage or culture. 6 3 5 6 9 13 17 21 18 2

O. Protect water quality. 1 0 1 1 5 7 8 27 49 2 P. Protect endangered species. 1 0 2 1 5 6 12 27 44 2

Q. Preserve natural areas for scientific discovery or study. 1 1 2 2 6 8 20 28 30 2 R. Protect places that provide a sense of place,

community, or belonging. 6 1 3 5 11 17 18 20 17 2

S. Protect endangered places. 1 1 1 3 3 6 15 28 41 2 T. Preserve unique wild plants or animals. 1 0 1 3 3 5 15 29 42 2

U. Protect wildlife, water, or plants that have value even if humans do not benefit from them.

1 0 2 3 4 5 14 29 42 2

V. Protect habitat for wildlife. 0 0 1 1 3 6 13 30 44 2 W. Provide scenic beauty. 2 1 2 2 6 14 21 22 30 2

43. From the list in Question 42 (above), please choose up to three that you think are most important for wilderness areas on land to provide. (write up to three letters from the question above)

Letter(s) see report


I believe…

Strongly Disagree


Agree

…there are areas of land in the world that could be called wilderness. 0% 1% 4% 37% 59% …there are protected areas of land in Oregon that could be called wilderness. 1 1 7 39 52 …there are other areas of land in Oregon that could be called wilderness. 1 2 10 40 47


100


Not Healthy Slightly Healthy Moderately Healthy Very Healthy Rivers and streams in Oregon. 1% 5% 8% 16% 24% 27% 13% 6% 1% Bays and estuaries in Oregon. 1 4 10 20 28 21 12 3 1 Marine areas (ocean) in Oregon. 1 3 8 17 29 22 12 7 2 Marine fish in Oregon. 1 3 11 16 31 22 11 3 2 Other marine animals in Oregon. 1 4 9 15 31 22 12 4 2 Wildlife in Oregon. 0 3 7 12 21 28 20 6 2 Forests in Oregon. 1 3 7 15 19 23 18 12 3


StronglyDisagree


Agree Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs. 22% 35% 21% 19% 3% Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature. 47 25 12 11 6 The so-called ecological crisis facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated. 41 32 15 8 4 The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them. 21 21 23 29 7 The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset. 2 8 15 43 33 When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences. 3 7 23 42 26 Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist. 5 10 20 33 33 Humans are severely abusing the environment. 3 8 11 39 39

47. Are you: (check ONE) 49% Male 51% Female 0% Other (e.g., Transgender Person)

48. What is your age? (write age) see report years old

49. Approximately how many years have you lived in Oregon? (write the number) see report year(s)

50. Approximately how many years have you lived at this current address? (write the number) see report year(s)

51. How would you describe the community where you live? (check ONE)

32% Large city (250,000 or more people) 21% Small city (25,000 to 99,999 people) 3% Small town (less than 5,000 people)

21% City (100,000 to 249,999 people) 15% Town (5,000 to 24,999 people) 6% Farm or rural area with few people

52. Do you own a second home on the Oregon coast? (check ONE)

94% No 6% Yes if yes, what is the main purpose of this second home? (check ONE)

0% Retirement 2% Property investment 3% Recreation 1% Other (write response) see report

53. Are you or anyone else in your household employed in the commercial fishing industry? (check ONE) 97% No 3% Yes

54. In general, do you consider your political orientation to be: (check ONE)

5% Very Conservative 18% Somewhat Conservative 26% Moderate 32% Somewhat Liberal 19% Very Liberal


2% Less than high school diploma 38% 4-year college degree (e.g., bachelors degree)

19% High school diploma or GED 25% Advanced degree beyond 4-year degree

16% 2-year associates degree or trade school (e.g., masters, Ph.D., medical doctor, law degree)

56. Where do you live? (write responses) City / town see report County see report Zipcode see report

THANK YOU! PLEASE RETURN THIS SURVEY AS SOON AS POSSIBLE IN THE ENVELOPE PROVIDED

6 1 Resident perceptions 0 of Oregon Marine Reserves€¦ · 2016 to residences in the most heavily...

Documents

Transcript of 6 1 Resident perceptions 0 of Oregon Marine Reserves€¦ · 2016 to residences in the most heavily...